COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 20 June 1861)

§ MR. BRIGHT
said, he had to present a petition of considerable length from the inhabitants of Madras, European and Native, stating that, in the opinion of the petitioners, the time had come for the introduction of the representative system with advantage to the institutions of the country. They called attention to the fact that before 1833 the Presidencies of Madras and Bombay had greater powers than since that time, and they prayed that those powers might be restored. In point of fact the petition, though drawn up before, went in the same direction as the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman. He also wished to present another petition from Bombay, bearing the signatures of many hundreds of the Native inhabitants of that city and island, who complained of the extravagant expenditure of the Indian Government, the onerous nature of some of the new taxes; and also, that the Presidencies had not sufficient power over their own local taxation. They prayed the House to pass a Bill in the spirit to which they referred. Those petitions had been sent over here, and ought to have been presented in the last Session, but they had not reached him till within the last two days.

§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY
said, he wished to ask whether the Secretary of State for India in Council had under consideration any scheme for reducing the salaries of the higher officers in India, beginning with the Governor General? He felt convinced that in the present state of the finances of India the adoption; of some such change was absolutely necessary.

§ SIR CHARLES WOOD
said, that the question of the regulation of the salaries of the higher officers of the Indian Civil-Service wais under the consideration of the Indian Council; but that, in consequence of the great pressure of important busi- 1329 ness, they had hitherto been unable to enter into the details of the question.

§ MR. VINCENT SCULLY
said,' he wished to express his surprise that some Gentleman acquainted with India had not risen to move that these Bills be referred to a Select Committee. He thought it very unfortunate that a Bill with regard to India should be brought forward here, and pressed through the House, which was almost as ignorant as he was himself upon these subjects. He had seen enough of Bills relating to Ireland—a subject with which he was acquainted—to know that they were greatly improved by the process of passing through a Select Committee. He considered the High Court of Judicature Bill to be both mischievous to the population, as it now stood, of India, and extremely unjust to the Judges. He saw great inconvenience in the separate discussion of these Bills, and, therefore, he should move that the first of them be referred to a Select Committee.

§ MR. H. BAILLIE
said, he hoped, if there was to be any reduction in the salaries of the high Civil servants in India, that the higher branches of the Military Service would also be subject to revision. The sums which were paid in the high Military Departments of India were quite monstrous. The Commander-in-Chief in India had a salary of not less than £19,000 a year when on service. He received the double salary of a Member of the Council, his military salary, and also an extra salary when he went on active service. His ordinary salary was £14,000 a year, which was increased by £5,000 a-year more when he was on active service. Such a sum was perfectly monstrous at the present day.

§ MR. SLANEY
was understood to say he hoped the claims of the Naval Service in India—a most meritorious body—would be taken into consideration by the right hon. Gentleman.

§ MR. AYRTON
said, be rose to move as an Amendment to add to the clause the repeal of the; Act of the 5 & 6 Will. IV., c. 52, and of sections 15, 16, 17, and 19 of the revive the Act 16 & 17 Vict. c. 95; in order to revive the Act 3 & 4 Will IV., c. 85, for establishing separate governments at Calcutta and Agra. The Clauses to which 1330 he referred were those portions of the existing law which suspended the action of the so-called charter of 3 & 4 Will. IV., by which provisions were made for a separate governor in council at Calcutta, and another at Agra. The Amendment was very simple in form, but the question involved in it was one of the very highest importance to the government and people of India. He should almost think it necessary to apologize to the House for bringing forward the subject, were it not that the reproach had been frequently thrown out that the House of Commons was in the habit of slurring over Indian questions. He (Mr. Ayrton) had always been an advocate of the proposal that the Secretary of State for India should be met face to face by an efficient Council. That measure had been adopted, and they were now reaping the fruits of it. One of its results was that the Secretary of State had invited the House to reconstitute the Indian Government. But the first question which stared them in the face was the one which had been raised with so much ability by the hon. Member for Birmingham—could there be an efficient Government in India as long as the control of affairs remained in its present divided footing? As the first step towards improved administration in India, it was necessary that there should be district Governments, and that each should not have under its charge a greater amount of territory than it could conveniently and efficiently administer. When he was in India no one there seemed to be able to account for the system on which we acted in concentrating the management of the whole of the affairs of India in the Government of Calcutta. It was said, indeed, that it was owing to the administration lying in the hands of what was called "the Calcutta clique." He did not join in that statement; but he mentioned it for the purpose of showing that the system was so unsupported by any good grounds that persons were forced to account for it by an imputation. The portions of India for which he asked a distinct administration stood in much greater need of it than did either Bombay or Madras. The Bengal provinces contained a population of 37,000,000, subject to what were called "Regulations." That was to say those 37,000,000 were people for whom legislation took place in a similar manner to that in which legislation took place in this country for the people of England. In addition there were 3,000,000 1331 in what were called the "non-regulation provinces." He was afraid that the distinction between "regulation" and "non-regulation" provinces was not very generally understood; but he thought it was this—that in the "regulation provinces" there was law, to which every one could appeal in asserting his rights, as between man and man, or in regard of the Government of the British Crown; but the "non-regulation provinces" were unhappy districts which the Government had pronounced to be unfit to enjoy any system of established jurisdiction, beyond the despotic rule of the Governor General. There there was no established law; and no man could say he had any rights at all except at the will of the Governor General. No doubt the absolute power of the Governor General was to some extent modified by the wisdom of successive governments, but the principle remained the same. Thus there were 40,000,000 of people in the Bengal provinces, which yielded also a gross revenue of nearly £13,000,000 sterling. Now, he contended that whatever might be the ability, or the assumed or imagined ability, of any man in India, it was quite enough for one man to rule over 40,000,000 of people, and to manage £13,000,000 of revenue. The interests pf the people and of good government required that these provinces should be made a separate and distinct administration. He would next pass to the north-west provinces. They had there a population of 30,000,000 of people in the regulation provinces, and of 3,000,000 in the non-regulation provinces, making a total of 33,000,000 with a gross revenue of £5,700,000. There, again, there was a charge so extensive as to demand the undivided care and responsibility of a separate government. It would be an argument for his proposition if it could be shown that these subdivisions were greater than some of the existing presidencies. The Presidency of Madras was said to contain 20,000,000 of people in the regulation provinces, and 2,500,000 in the non-regulation provinces, with a revenue of £6,500,000. The Presidency of Bombay had 9,000,000 of inhabitants in the regulation and 2,700,000 in the non-regulation provinces, and its revenue was £7,200,000. If with Buck populations and revenues as these it had been found necessary to have these two Governments of Madras and Bombay, it was quite obvious that in the case of a population of double the amount 1332 with a revenue nearly double, it was equally necessary and more desirable. Let not the Committee suppose that if the subdivision were made there would be no duties left for the Governor General to perform, because there would remain to him an amount of duty and responsibility sufficient to make a wise man start with alarm before undertaking its duties. He would still have 23,000,000 of people subject to his control; he would have to supervise the affairs of the Native States connected with the British Government, possessing a population of 48,000,000; he would have to look after the revenue of the British provinces and after the revenues of all the Native States that the British Government had bound itself to maintain in their rule over their Native subjects—which comprised a population of 71,000,000 of people, producing £7,000,000 of direct taxation, and many millions of indirect revenue belonging to those Native States. But such was the love of power that they had been unable to get the Government to consent to the establishment of additional government, on the ground that it would interfere with the free action of the Governor General. Parliament, however, was invited to consider the subject at a time when it made the most comprehensive and searching investigation that had ever taken place into the administration of Indian affairs—he meant before renewing the charter in 1834; and the result of all that investigation and the deliberation that ensued upon it was, that it would contribute to the good government of India at once to establish two distinct governments upon the basis of the governments of Bombay and Madras—one for Calcutta and the north western provinces, and the other for Bengal and Agra. That was the deliberate judgment of Parliament at that time, and it was embodied in the statute, which contained also all the requisite provisions for carrying it into effect. But after a year or two the subject was considered in Calcutta, and a despatch was written, which was laid upon the Table of the House, suggesting that it would be undesirable to carry that Act into effect. He had read that document as well as the other documents on the subject, and it struck him that they were singularly deficient of any reasons against giving effect to the deliberate legislation of the House of Commons. The Government of the day, however, proceeded in what be would call a mild and gentle manner, by asking the House to suspend the operations of the 1333 Act. The House acquiesced in the course proposed, and from that day to the present the Act to which he referred never came into operation. Now, he wished to put an end to that state of suspension, and to give effect to the Act which had previously passed. It was, no doubt, the easiest thing in the world at any time to conjure up an immense amount of difficulty, if it were thought desirable by certain parties to prevent a measure coming into operation in India. He had seen many occasions in which such difficulties were set before their eyes. But he had also found that on a minute examination of the facts of the case in question those difficulties generally faded away. If there had been difficulties in the way of carrying the Act into effect, they rather arose from the position of the Government having to deal with a Court of Directors and Board of Control, from the interests of the Civil Service in India, which was the child of the Court of Directors, and from the state of the army, which was in the last degree unsatisfactory, But the alteration that had now teen made in the Home Administration, in the Civil Service, and in the organization of the army, and in other important matters, had entirely removed all the difficulties which were formerly suggested as being in the way of giving effect to the Act of Parliament. He did not believe there was any real objection to the Act coming into operation, and that being the case, the great question came before them, whether it was not their imperative duty to provide for a population of 40,000,000 an efficient local administration—whether they ought to leave such a population the sport of circumstances, as they had done during the last twenty-seven years of their Indian Administration? Hitherto these people had been left to the casual rule of a Lieutenant Governor—they had never experienced the Advantages that other presidencies had had of having regular governors sent out direct from this country, but had been placed in an inferior category, which he believed had been very prejudicial to the interests of their inhabitants. He admitted the advantage of having an organized Civil Service identified with British interests in India; but if they wished to have a province in India well governed, the man at the head of that province should be am independent ruler, sent direct from this country. The first duty of such a governor was hold a firm hand over the Civil Service, and when necessary, to stand be- 1334 tween them and the other classes in India. But, however able a man brought up in the Civil Service of Bengal might be, when he left the secrétariat and entered upon the office of Lieutenant Governor he did not assume the government under conditions favourable to a sound administration, but rather under conditions most unfavourable to an efficient administration, and the maintenance of that authority and influence which he ought to possess. If there had been a British Governor in Bengal, as in Bombay or Madras, he did not believe they would have heard one word of those indigo transactions, which had been so deplorable in their results. At a time when they saw people in this country anxious to employ their capital in India, and saw that this involved a question pregnant with results important to the industry of this country, they were bound to consider what was likely to induce British subjects to settle in India, and what was requisite for their security when there. If they did not get from India those products which she was so well able to raise, such as corn, cotton, indigo, &c., they could not hope for those remittances to this country that were so necessary for the maintenance of Indian credit. It was essential that Bengal should have a local Legislative Council. Whatever, indeed, was necessary for good government in Madras or Bombay was equally desirable for Bengal, and it would be an object of great importance to emancipate the Governor General from the local administration of affairs in Bengal. There was only one other point to which he wished to refer in support of his Motion, and that was the great commerce of Bengal even as compared with Bombay and Madras. The exports of Bengal were year by year increasing, and had now attained a magnitude which a few years ago none could have anticipated, and with these great interests involved, he placed the question before the right hon. Gentleman as one of paramount importance. Every one with whom he had conversed upon the subject acquiesced in the necessity of the step. Terrified indigo planters looked upon it as essential for the protection of their interests; the Natives had always demanded it; while he thought the personal interests of the Civil Service were no longer to be looked to as the first consideration in regulating the affairs of India. Military interests were also now made subservient to the interests of the nation, and he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would give his 1335 consideration to the matter, and upon his own responsibility propose the repeal of the suspending Acts that had been passed, and give to these great populations that which was a necessary condition of their future good government, and which he believed was absolutely necessary if they did not want a recurrence of those proceedings ending in mutinies such as they had had before. He proposed in line nineteen to add the words "the Act 5th and 6th Will. IV., cap. 52, and sections 15, 16, 17 and 19 of the Act 16th and 17th Vict., cap. 95."

§ SIR CHARLES WOOD
said, he had listened with great pleasure to the speech of the hon. Gentleman, but he had scarcely been able to collect the object of his proposal. The hon. Gentleman said it was essential to the interests of India that there should be a local Legislative Council in Bengal and a fixed Governor in Bengal, as in the other presidencies. But there had been for many years a fixed Lieutenant Governor for Bengal. The Executive Government of Bengal had long been separated from the Government of India, and the Bill now proposed to give a separate legislative organization to Bengal. Therefore, the main object which the hon. Gentleman appeared to desire was attained by the Bill before the Committee. The difference between the hon. Gentleman's proposal and that of the Government simply amounted to this, that instead of a Lieutenant Governor appointed by the Governor General, who was always a member of the Civil Service of India, the hon. Gentleman wished there should be a Governor sent out from this country, who might or might not be a civil servant of India. The difference being so inconsiderable, it might be said that the general tenour of the hon. Gentleman's speech had been in support of the Bill. He concurred with the hon. Gentleman in approving the separate local administration of Bengal. When he had the honour of being President of the Board of Control he introduced the Bill of 1853 in which he provided for the appointment of a Lieutenant Governor of Bengal. The hon. Member was, therefore, incorrect in saying that for thirty years the affairs of Bengal had been administered by the Governor General. The non-regulation provinces had nothing to do with the administration of Bengal. Many of them had been administered as admirably as the provinces in any other part of India. He believed that the administration of Sir John Lawrence 1336 in the Punjab and of Mr. Thomason and Mr. Edmondson in the North Western Provinces had been as good as that of any other district of India. Take also the case of Oude, which, in two years under the administration of Sir Robert Montgomery and Mr. Wingfield, from a chronic state of war and bloodshed had become as tranquil as any portion of Indian territory from Cape Comorin to the Himalayas. The hon. Gentleman had, he thought, done injustice to the administration of affairs in our non-regulation provinces. That administration had, moreover, very little to do with the hon. Gentleman's proposal, seeing that it was confined to the administration of Bengal and the North Western Provinces, which were not non-regulation provinces. He also concurred in thinking it most desirable that the Governor General should be relieved from the local cares of a portion of India, and should be able to devote his attention more exclusively to those general questions in which there was ample scope for any amount of exertion and ability he might possess. But the tendency of all recent legislation had been to separate the Governor General from the exclusive influence of the Bengal Civil Service. That object had been so far attained that for a short time there was not a single member of the Bengal civil or military service in the Governor General's Council. That Council, no doubt, ought to consist of Members summoned from all parts of India, and conversant with the wide and varied interests of that country. With the general view of the hon. Gentleman he entirely agreed, but he was not prepared to take upon himself at present to re-establish in Bengal and in the North Western Provinces governors upon the same footing as the presidents of Madras and Bombay. He did not mean to say that the time might not come when such a measure would be expedient, but there had been a good deal of reference in these discussions to the finances of India, and he was not prepared at present to impose any new charge upon the revenue of India which was not necessary for the due administration of its affairs. The staff of a Governor would necessarily be more expensive than that of a Lieutenant Governor. The question could not be considered except in connection with, perhaps, the more important question of the transaction of the seat of government from Calcutta to some other part of India. He did not mean to say that this might not be de- 1337 sirable some day, as there were many reasons in favour of placing the seat of government within nearer communication with this country. There were, however, various difficulties in the selection of another place for the seat of government; and he did not think that it would be desirable to carry the changes now being made further at present, or to raise difficulties beyond those which must necessarily be encountered. He had written to the Governor General to suggest to him whether the course now recommended by the hon. Gentleman would be desirable, and his reply was this:—He was not prepared to say that it was a proposal to be at all times negatived, but that we should not at present go beyond what was proposed in the Bill—namely, to give the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal power to summon councillors of the Civil Service, and other persons not in the service, both Europeans and Natives to aid in the legislation for Bengal. If the Governor General were to sit with his Council in Calcutta, and the Governor of the Presidency to sit with his Council, also, there would be two independent authorities; jealousies would arise, and that he thought was a great objection to the proposition. But if the seat of Government were taken away from Calcutta, he thought it should be fixed in some central place where there was no Governor. He did not think they were ripe for that yet. Concurring with the hon. Gentleman in the expediency of having a separate executive and legislative authority in Bengal, which was provided for in the Bill; concurring with him also in the expediency of a separate Government for the North-Western Provinces, he was not prepared to go the length of repealing these clauses, which suspended the power of creating separate presidencies in Bengal and Agra, the effect of which would be to constitute these in the same manner as the presidencies of Bombay and Madras were constituted. Having consulted with the Council he came to the conclusion for financial and political reasons it was not desirable to take a step of so much importance at present. He, therefore trusted; that the hon, Member would press his Amendment to a division.

MR. DANBY SEYMOUR
said, he agreed in much that had been said by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, but his Amendment would more properly come on when the 44th Clause was under discussion. He believed it would be of great, 1338 advantage to have more councils in India. For thirty or forty years recommendations had been made by the very highest authorities that Central India should be formed into a separate Government. Metcalfe recommended it; so did Malcolm; so did the present Governor General. He also thought that if a governor were appointed from this country in Agra, with a council consisting of Natives and Europeans in equal proportions, such an arrangement would be advantageous, and would cause the Natives to become better accustomed to the British rule, especially if the council was a mere consultative one—a kind of durbar. In the case of Scinde and the Punjab the subject of uniting the two had been considered, and the union of the two with a separate government had been recommended, and it was thought best to assimilate it to Madras and Bombay. His objection to the Amendment was that there existed at the present moment power in the Secretary of State, who succeeded to the powers of the Court of Directors, to constitute Agra into a new presidency, with a governor, but not a deputy governor.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, he concurred in the general views expressed by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, though, perhaps, there would be hardly time to embody them in an Act. There was a great deal of force in the argument that it might be desirable that the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal should not be a member of the Civil Service. One of the greatest problems to solve was how to tempt Englishmen over to India to invest their capital there, and at the same time to treat the Natives with the greatest justice and forbearance. Differences of opinion existed with reference to the official and lion-official classes in India. It was not for him to say which class was right, though he confessed that with respect to the indigo question he thought the official class in India was right, and that the steps which had been taken were demanded by justice, and would result eventually in the advantage of the non-official class of British cultivators in India. But, however this might be, it was essential for the continuance of proper relations between the two classes that there should be perfect confidence in the impartiality of the Government. He, therefore, thought that it would be a great benefit if the Government at home were able to appoint a Lieutenant Governor for Bengal; and he suggested 1339 that, if such power did not exist already, a clause should be introduced giving the requisite authority to the Secretary for India.

§ SIR CHARLES WOOD
said, his impression was that he had the power under the 16th Clause of the Act to make the appointment of a governor who was not of the Civil Service; and if he did not make the appointment, then the Governor General might appoint a lieutenant Governor, who must he a member of the Civil Service.

LORD STANLEY
said, the expediency of sending out a Governor from home, or empowering the Governor General to appoint a Lieutenant Governor, was a question the solution of which appeared to him to depend very much on the circumstance whether a Native or European population existed to the greater extent within the district to which the appointment was to be made. In his opinion, a Lieutenant Governor would be found preferable in the former case, inasmuch as he would in all probability be selected from a class of men who had Indian experience, and were versed in Native customs and habits. In the Punjab and the North-Western Provinces, therefore, a person who had an Indian training would make the best Governor. In those instances, on the contrary, in which a European population had to be dealt with, it was well known that a Native training was not the best to which a man called upon to govern it should have been subjected. If, he might add, the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets pressed his Amendment to a division, he should be obliged to vote against him, while he concurred in many of the arguments he had advanced. The proposal to constitute two new Presidencies was, he thought, one of too much importance to be decided by a hasty vote in a thin House, particularly as the matter had not been duly considered in India, and as no opinion with respect to it had been pronounced upon it by the Governor General, and as it had not been discussed by the Secretary for India in Council at home.

§ MR. BRIGHT
said, the Committee was much in the position with respect to the question at issue in which hon. Members had found themselves the day before, when everybody agreed that some settlement of the church rate question was desirable, but could come to no definite arrangement as to how that settlement should be carried into effect. The Secretary for India concurred in the main with the hon. Member 1340 for the Tower Hamlets; the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets said he (Mr. Bright) had forcibly expressed the same view of the subject on some previous occasion. The hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Danby Seymour) also agreed with the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, and he thought the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Forster) agreed with them all. He (Mr. Bright) had no intention of differing with any one, except by suggesting a mode of doing what was wanted more conveniently than by the means which had been suggested. It was raised upon the part of the Government as an objection to the establishment of a Governor at Calcutta that he and the Governor General would, as it were, be in the position of the two kings of Brentford, and that Parliament would ultimately be called upon to extirpate one or the other, owing to the circumstance that they would come into collision. But if the right hon. Gentleman would turn to Clause 44, he would find that it was proposed, when the Secretary of State for India thought fit, to give the Governor General the power to apply this Act to the Presidency of Bengal, though not to establish exactly the same kind of Government which existed or was to exist in Madras and Bombay. Now, what he asked the right hon. Gentleman to do, and what he believed would meet the case, was to give the Governor General power to establish exactly the same kind of Government in Bengal as would be given by the Bill to Bombay and Madras. If some words were left out, he thought the difficulty would be met. As to the office of Governor General itself, he would simply say that he was not in favour of such functionaries in India, believing them, as he did, to be, generally speaking, great nuisances; but if it were deemed necessary that there should be a Governor General, he might, he thought, be located in some place more central, more healthy, and where he would be less likely to interfere with the population of the Presidency of Bengal, than Calcutta. He should not recommend the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets to divide the Committee on his Amendment, while he should repeat the suggestion that by an alteration of the 44th Clause power might be given to accomplish that which he sought to effect when the most advantageous moment for doing so arrived.

§ MR. VINCENT SCULLY
said, he believed that the best way of dealing with' this and all similar questions was to refer 1341 them to a Select Committee, although when he made a proposition to that effect it did not find a seconder. He did not believe that the Committee with its existing information was in a position by a hasty vote to alter the Bill.

§ MR. W. EWART
said, he wished to know whether the press and the public as far as possible would be admitted to the debates in the proposed Councils? He believed that publicity of that kind was the best mode of initiating the people of India into our system of Government.

§ SIR CHARLES WOOD
remarked, that if a lieutenant governor was appointed out of the Civil Service for Upper India there would be no need of an Executive Council; but they could not send out a governor for the administration of a Presidency without giving him the advantage of such an Executive Council as existed in Madras and Bombay. A governor general would cost more than a lieutenant governor; and although not averse to the proposal of sending out a governor he did not think that was the time to extend expenses, more especially as they had just been cutting down the higher salaries in India. With regard to publicity of the debates in the Councils, he did not think it was a matter which ought to be made imperative law. His views were in accordance with those of the present Governor General, that publicity in the local Parliament ought to be the rule; but that in Upper India, where the Natives would take part in the debates, publicity would be inconvenient. He thought that the question must be left to the Governor General or to the Governor of the Presidency.

§ MR. AYRTON
said, the right hon. Gentleman had admitted the correctness of his (Mr. Ayrton's) views; but had put in the usual plea of Indian secretaries, that they could not be put in force just now. He thought a great step had been taken in getting so distinct a recognition of the soundness of the views taken in 1834, and the expression of a desire, as soon as possible, to carry them into effect. He should, therefore, withdraw his Amendment.

MR. DANBY SEYMOUR
said, he should move the postponement of the clause unless he received a satisfactory explanation to the question which he had to put. The clause in the beginning said, that a number of sections were repealed. He wished to know were they repealed in consequence of anything in the Bill, or because of things beside the Bill?

§ SIR CHARLES WOOD
said, the clauses proposed to be repealed were those which were contradictory to the provisions of the Bill.

§ MR. ADAM
said, he wished to propose such an alteration in the clause as would provide that vacancies in the Supreme Council of India should be filled up by the Secretary of State in concurrence with the majority of his whole Council, and not as the Bill provided, with a majority only of those who might be present at a meeting. He did not wish to hint that the Secretary of State would pack a meeting, but Members might be out of town, or the Council might be hurriedly called, or Members connected with Bengal only might be present when a councillor for Bombay was wanted, or councillors for Bombay might be called on to elect a Member for Bengal. He was satisfied that the public confidence would be more fully reposed in the Members elected if the whole Council were concerned in the election.

MR. DANBY SEYMOUR
said, he had an Amendment to propose in a previous part of the clause. It was in line 29, and was, instead of the words "there shall be," to insert "it shall be lawful to appoint." His object was to make it permissive instead of obligatory to appoint a financial secretary to the Legislative Council. It might be necessary to appoint a financial secretary, but not to re-appoint one. Where a matter of £8,000 a year was concerned, he thought it might be worth while to consider whether it might not be possible at some future time to save it. He could not conceive that the right hon. Gentleman could object to the proposal, as he understood it to have the sanction of a great many gentlemen of high authority upon Indian affairs, and there was a public rumour abroad that the Council of the right hon. Gentleman were favourable to it. In the one case the right hon. Gentleman must find a gentleman to fill this appointment of £8,000 a year, but if the Amendment were adopted a licence would be given by the House to effect the economy when it might be desirable. He thought the time was fast approaching when it would not be necessary to send out a financial secretary to India. Mr. Wilson and Mr. Laing had inaugurated a new system, and he thought after a short time all that would be wanted was a gentleman like Mr. 1343 Arbuthnot and other gentlemen high up in the Treasury, who would put the accounts of India in order, and keep them so.

§ COLONEL SYKES
said, that the time might arrive when it would be important to the Secretary for India to save £8,000 a year, and it would be gratifying to him to know that it would not be necessary to appoint a gentleman to receive that sum. He should, therefore, support the Amendment.

§ SIR CHARLES WOOD
said, he had merely followed the precedents of former Acts. The last Act prescribed that there should be four members of Council; the Bill before them prescribed that there should be five. There had always been an optional power vested in the Secretary of State to suspend the nomination of members of Council; but he thought it desirable that the number should be fixed in the Act. The Governor General had recently written home exulting that, for the first time these four years, he had a full Council and a full secrétariat; but in the course of a month two Members of Council had been struck down with illness—one was obliged to come home, and the other to take a sea voyage for the restoration of his health. Five members he thought not more than enough to conduct the important business which had to be performed by the the Council.

§ MR. BRIGHT
said, he hoped his hon. Friend would not divide the Committee upon his proposal. It was six of one and half a dozen of another. £8,000 a year was a matter of £8,000 a year, but it did not appear to him that five members were an excessive number. It might be that £8,000 a year was too much, and he should like to see it brought down to £5,000. But there was one point upon which he did not agree with his hon. Friend, who thought that the finances of India could be brought down to the state they were in before, and that there would be no need of a Chancellor of the Exchequer for India; but if the right hon. Gentleman were to give his testimony he would be able to make some great revelations. Many of the gentlemen in India appeared not to know even the multiplication table. No one of the 1,000 persons connected with the Civil Service in India seemed to understand his multiplication table.

§ MR. VANSITTART
said, he thought the hon. Member for Birmingham had travelled a good deal out of his way to say something derogatory to the Civil Service 1344 of India. He spoke of the necessity of sending out a Financial Secretary from this country; but the fact was that Mr. Laing was actually reversing Mr. Wilson's financial policy, and adopting that recommended by Mr. Harrington—a civil servant and Member for the north-western provinces—namely, to abandon the income tax and introduce a licence tax. Candidates for the Civil Service were obliged to undergo a severe competitive examination; having passed that, they had to undergo another examination in two of the Native languages; then, while they remained in this country, they had to submit a report to the Civil Service Commissioners in regard to the procedure of the courts; and when they went to India they were subjected to a departmental examination before they could get any appointment, while by the Bill a barrister of five years' standing was to have the powers of superseding these civilians. They all knew what a barrister was—a gentleman, after keeping a certain number of terms, or eating a certain number of dinners, and hearing lectures for one year, was a barrister, called to the Bar; and five years afterwards, without looking into a law book unless he chose, he was eligible to one of the judgeships under the provisions of this Bill. He could not help saying so much with reference to the want of financial ability imputed to the Civil Service by the hon. Member for Birmingham.

§ MR. KINNAIRD
said, he thought the observations of the hon. Member for Birmingham with respect to the civil servants in India too sweeping. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would not divide the Committee. There was nothing in the Bill which compelled that the salary should be £8,000.

LORD STANLEY
observed that, no doubt, the appointment of a Financial Secretary was desirable, although it was only within the last two years that it had been thought necessary to send him from this country. There was power, however, under the law as it stood to send out a financier instead of a legal Member, as had actually been done in 1859. He had more doubt about the appointment of a legal Member, but if his right hon. Friend was prepared to take the responsibility of the appointment he was not prepared to oppose him.

§ SIR CHARLES WOOD
said, the greatest possible inconvenience had been found from the want of a financial Member. It was absolutely necessary to send out Mr. 1345 Wilson and Mr. Laing, and he was sorry to say that the accounts of the finances of India showed them to be in a very unsatisfactory state. His hon. Friend (Colonel Sykes) had been studying those finances—[Colonel SYKES: Hear, hear!]—and had not been able to come to what he (Sir Charles Wood) certainly had not been able to arrive at—namely, a clear conclusion on the subject. The Governor General upon more than one occasion had complained of not having the assistance of a legal gentleman, and had been obliged to call upon the Advocate General to assist him in the framing of Bills. It was quite essential at present that there should be both those Members.

MR. J. B. SMITH
said, he hoped his hon. Friend would withdraw his Amendment. He wished to ask the Secretary for India whether it was intended that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court should be one of the Governor General's Executive Council, or one of the Legislative Council?

§ SIR CHARLES WOOD
said, the Chief Justice never had been a Member of the Executive Council. He would not be ex officio a member of the Legislative Council.

§ SIR CHARLES WOOD
said, that with reference to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Kinross (Mr. Adams), he begged to state that he had merely adopted the words of the existing law—that in all appointments the majority of Members of Council present was necessary. He did not give himself more power or patronage by the words of the clause. If Members of the Council would not attend in their places the alteration proposed would create an obstacle which might be very inconvenient. He thought it better that one uniform rule should prevail, and that in matters of expense and patronage a majority of the members present should be all that ought to be required.

§ COLONEL SYKES
said, he thought the Amendment a very reasonable one. The Indian Council consisted of fifteen members, but five formed a quorum, so that three members would constitute a majority.

LORD STANLEY
said, he was quite as zealous as any one for the maintenance of the influence of the Council, but he thought it would be doing injustice to the members of it to suppose that, because five Members of the Council were a quorum, therefore, only that number habitually attended. 1346 Generally speaking, the whole fifteen were present, and no absences occurred except from illness or other unavoidable causes. By the Act of 1858, all the powers exercised by the Council were vested in the majority present at a meeting.

§ SIR CHARLES WOOD
said, he could confirm the statement of the noble Lord. He had never known a meeting of the Council to consist of less than eleven, and, in most cases, the entire number attended.

§ MR. ADAM,
after the explanations which had been given, said he would not press his Amendment.

§ MR. TORRENS
said, he wished to move the omission of the concluding words of the clause, empowering the Secretary of State in Council to appoint the Commander-in-Chief to be an extraordinary member of the Governor General's Council. The military duties of the Commander-in-Chief rendered it generally impossible for him to attend the sittings of the Council, and that in the present state of the finances of India he ought not to be paid a double salary. The Commander-in-Chief received about £8,000 a year as a member of the Supreme Council, and £7,000 for the discharge of his military duties, together with some £3,000 or £4,000 for field allowances. The civil salary might be very fairly deducted.

§ SIR CHARLES WOOD
said, he could not agree to the Amendment, which proposed to exclude the Commander-in-Chief from the Governor General's Council. That would be a most unfortunate step to take, considering to what extent the Governor General had to do with the management of the army. It should, moreover, be remembered that by the Act of 1853 the emoluments of the Commander-in-Chief had been reduced nearly one-half. Formerly he received from £17,000 to £18,000 a year in his twofold capacity, but now his salary was only £10,000, or little more than the salary of an ordinary member of Council, although his responsibilities were far greater.

§ MR. H. BAILLIE
said, he thought that the explanation as to the salary was satisfactory, and would advise his hon. Friend not to press the Amendment.

§ MR. VANSITTART
said, he hoped the Amendment would not be persisted in.

MR. DANBY SEYMOUR
said, he wished, after the words referring to the appointment of the remaining two out of the five ordinary Members of Council by Her 1347 Majesty's warrant under the Royal sign manual, to move the insertion of the words: Provided that one of such remaining two shall, at the time of such appointment, be a practicing barrister-at-law of not less than ten years' standing at the Bar of England or Ireland, or a practicing member of the Faculty of Advocates in Scotland of not less than ten years' standing at the Bar of Scotland, to assist by his legal advice the said Council of the Governor General, to superintend and control the preparation of laws and regulations, and to discharge all other duties incident to the office of an ordinary member of the said Council. If his Amendment were not acceded to, the Committee would be sanctioning the possibility that some gentleman other than a legal gentleman might be sent out to fill the post of Legislative Councillor.

§ SIR CHARLES WOOD
said, that of course the object of the provision was to enable the Government to send out a gentleman to assist the Governor General in Council in the legal portion of the business that came before him. He objected to the terms proposed by the hon. and learned Member, because he did not want a practising barrister. There was a good deal of law in India which was not English law, and, therefore, it might be preferable to have a person acquainted with the principles of law rather than a practicing barrister. Under the terms of the Amendment, he believed the late Lord Macaulay was not qualified when he went out to India. It was unwise to tie up too closely the discretion of the Government. The difficulty was often to find persons qualified and willing to fill the various posts. Let the Committee consider what had happened. It had been intended that a legislative member should be a lawyer, but fortunately the words of the Act of Parliament did not bind the Government to send out a practicing barrister, for circumstances arose which rendered it desirable to send out a financial member of the Council, and accordingly, in compliance with the suggestion of the noble Lord opposite, a gentleman was sent out who rendered great services, and whose death was a loss much to be deplored.

§ MR. H. BAILLIE
said, he thought the legal adviser of the Governor General should be acquainted with Indian law, but he did not see why there need be any legal member at all.

§ MR. BRIGHT
observed that the right hon. Baronet had told them that it might be desirable to send out a person who was versed in arithmetic and not in law, and I that it was better not to restrict too much 1348 the discretion of the Government. But, as of the five members of the Council one was to be a financial member, there could be no necessity for appointing a financier in place of the legal member. The term of "practising barrister" in the Amendment might, perhaps, be better omitted, as there were many men well qualified who did not practise in court. He did not, however, attach any weight to the illustration of the right hon. Gentleman of Lord Macaulay, because he (Mr. Bright) did not believe that Lord Macaulay ever did anything for India while he was there. As to the requirement of ten years' standing at the Bar, that period might be thought too long, but still it was desirable that some term of experience at the Bar should be prescribed. The right hon. Gentleman said there was a difficulty sometimes to find the right man for a particular post; but when there was a salary of £8,000 a year there was sometimes a tendency to put in the wrong man, who was always ready. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would o consent to the Amendment if the word "practising" was omitted; and the requirement of ten years' standing reduced to six or seven years.

§ SIR CHARLES WOOD
said, that if there were to be any restriction at all it ought at least to be wide enough to include all the legal profession. A civilian ought not to be excluded if he were the right person for the place.

§ MR. AYRTON
said, that reference had been made to the Indian code of Lord Macaulay. All he had ever heard of that code was this—a gentleman once read a passage from it to another person, who remarked, "What an admirable skit on a code of law!" The gentleman assured him it was no skit or joke at all, but an actual passage from the code itself. He believed that for twenty years there had been attempts to make something of that code; but no one had ever succeeded. That was very instructive. He admitted the great difficulty of framing a code of law. But what he complained of was this—they were asked to pass Acts of Parliament that were of the nature of a code, and he thought it absolutely necessary that some description or definition of its policy should be inserted; but if any one proposed to insert anything like a description they were told it was a restriction. The purpose or necessity of these appointments ought to be put on record. There were two Members of Council to be ap- 1349 pointed—one for the purpose of managing the finances of India, the other to assist the Governor General in the administration of the laws. He would, therefore, ask the right hon. Gentleman to put something into the Bill indicating the purpose for which these two officers were sent out to India. If it was stated that a barrister of a certain standing was to assist in making the laws, it would be enough. The number of years standing would not be a test of ability; but it would be a check. It would prevent any one being made a banister merely for the purpose of going to India; he could not be called to the Bar merely for that purpose. The standing might be fixed at five years, according to the qualification for an Indian judgeship; or seven years, which was the qualification for a Judge of a County Court.

LORD STANLEY
said, he hoped the right hon. Baronet would follow the advice of hon. Members, and give some guarantee hi the Bill that the gentlemen to be appointed should be men of ability. He felt, however, much difficulty in the wording of the clause. The post ought to be restricted to a lawyer, but the words "practising barrister" would exclude many valuable members of the legal profession, and that might be attended with inconvenience. It would be necessary also to consider how the Calcutta Bar would be affected. Again, the term of years was not a secure guarantee of professional eminence. Many barristers, after some years' practice, had really no more knowledge of the law than any educated man. The mere qualification of a practising barrister, therefore, was no security for professional knowledge. Still, with a view of securing as great a safeguard as possible, it might be well, notwithstanding the incidental inconvenience, to retain the word "practising."

§ SIR CHARLES WOOD
said, if the hon. Gentleman did not press his Amendment, he would, before the Report was brought up, endeavour to meet the objections.

§ MR. LAYARD
said, he presumed, after what the right hon. Gentleman had said, that the hon. Member for Poole would not press his Amendment. He quite agreed with the noble Lord opposite that the way in which the description was worded required great consideration. There were many persons qualified as jurists who had never been called to the Bar; Bentham, for instance, never practised as a lawyer; and 1350 those professors of law in the Universities who had made law their study, yet had never been called to the Bar, were better qualified as jurists than many practising barristers.

§ MR. VINCENT SCULLY
said, he approved the Amendment. He thought for so high and important an office the qualification ought to be ten years' standing rather than five.

MR. DANBY SEYMOUR
said, he would withdraw his Amendment, but, as to the qualification, he considered it a great advantage to have had experience of the collisions in the courts of law, and to have seen them in actual operation. A man who had not seen something of the practical working of the law could not be of much assistance to the Governor General.

§ MR. AYRTON
suggested that there should be a limit to the amount of the salaries, and moved the insertion of the words, "not exceeding the amount now allowed by law."

§ SIR CHARLES WOOD
assured the Committee that there was not the slightest intention of increasing the salaries, but as the Council of India had been constituted in order to serve as a check upon the expenditure, he thought it would be more fitting to leave the matter to them.

§ MR. VINCENT SCULLY
said, the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman would not be in the slightest degree binding on the Government, and if their intention was not to increase the amount of the salaries, why not insert the words suggested?

§ MR. LAYARD
said, he had to move an Amendment of much importance. The great value of the Bill was that it recognized at last the position of the Natives. By the clause the Governor General in Council had the power of appointing not more than twelve and not less than six additional Members of the Council, of whom one-half were to be non-official Members. Now, he wished it to be expressly stated that a certain number of these additional Members should be Natives. The right hon. Gentleman had a 1351 few nights before declared that no distinction should be drawn between any subjects of Her Majesty, whether Natives or not, No such distinction ought, indeed, to exist between our fellow-subjects, whatever their race, their colour, or their creed. But he should shortly have to bring before the House an instance drawn from the medical service in which this distinction was maintained, and a great hardship had been inflicted. The insertion in the clause of express words respecting the appointment of Natives would convey no slight upon them, while it would insure the object in view. These Bills afforded an earnest of the right hon. Gentleman's sincerity upon this question; but his successor, or the Governor General for the time being, might not be of the same mind, or a pressure might be brought to bear upon him by the British inhabitants, which might prevent the Governor General from nominating Native gentlemen. Believing that to insert such a provision would strengthen the hands of the Governor General, he would move to add the words—"And provided that not less than one-fourth of such additional members of Council shall be Natives of India."

§ COLONEL SYKES
said, he gave the right hon. Gentleman full credit for a wish that Natives properly qualified should be eligible to offices of trust and emolument; but in the Bills there was no mention of the Natives. It was all very well to say that there should be no difference between a British subject born in India and one born in any other part of the world, but unless a distinct provision to that effect were introduced into the Bill, it would be said in India that the Natives were never intended for high office. Unless they gave fruition to the expectations they had excited they would ultimately fall victims to the intellectual energy which they had stimulated.

§ MR. BUXTON
said, he was of opinion that there were a large number of Natives who might safely be trusted with a share in the Government of India, and nothing would so tend to establish our Government in India as a liberal distribution of public patronage to them. It might be said that by the existing Act it was declared that there should be no difference in the position of Natives and Europeans in this respect; but, on the other hand, it might be argued that, as the Natives were not specifically mentioned, it was not intended that they should be intrusted with these 1352 offices, and to insert these words, therefore, would give them a guarantee which they did not now possess.

§ MR. TORRENS
observed, that it would be better to leave the matter to the discretion of the Secretary of State.

§ SIR CHARLES WOOD
said, he still adhered to the opinion which he had formerly expressed, that it was essential that the Natives should be more largely taken into the administration of the country, and the Bills were framed in that spirit. There ought to be no legislative distinction between any class of Her Majesty's subjects whatever their colour, creed, or race, and for that reason he objected to mentioning any class by name in an Act of Parliament. A Bill had been introduced into the Legislative Council making that distinction which the Governor General had resisted, and he had strongly supported the Governor General in his objections to any legal distinction being made. He objected to the Amendment on the same principle that, neither by exclusion nor by privilege, should any distinction be made, but that all classes of Her Majesty's subjects, without being named, should be admissible to offices to which they were qualified.

§ MR. BRIGHT
said, there was great force in the objection made by the right hon. Gentleman to the insertion of the words. At the same time, he considered that the arguments in favour of his hon. Friend's Amendment were absolutely overwhelming. He believed the universal opinion of Parliament and of the people of the country to be in favour of the fair admission, at least, of such a number of Natives to the councils as should give some satisfaction to the people of India; but he had great doubts as to the desirability of defining accurately the portion of power which should be given to either race in that country. He should be quite satisfied if the right hon. Gentleman, when these councils were formed, would express his opinion to the Government of India as to the employment of Natives in them, because, if such a recommendation were once given to the Government by the Secretary of State, a practice would be set up and a precedent established, without putting words into the Act to which there might be some real objection.

§ SIR CHARLES WOOD
said, the hon. Gentleman's suggestion was a perfectly fair one, and when the Act was passed it would be his duty to address a despatch to the Government of India, pointing out 1353 how it should be carried into operation, and he had no difficulty in saying that he should recommend—as it was before his intention to do—the free admission of Natives into the Legislative Council, without specifying any proportion.

§ MR. VINCENT SCULLY
said, he had no faith in these fast and loose statements, which did not in any way bind any future Secretary of State. If compulsory words were not inserted in the Bill he did not believe that any Natives would be admitted into the Legislative Council: at all events, if they were, it would only be pro hâc vice, until the policy of the Government were changed. It would have been much better if the Emancipation Act had contained a clause requiring that one-fourth of the Cabinet should be Roman Catholics. There was a permissive power, but no Roman Catholic had ever been admitted a member of the Cabinet. He hoped the hon. Member would divide the Committee upon his Amendment. If he succeeded he would do good, and if he failed he would have called attention to a very important subject.

§ MR. AYRTON
said, he was in the habit of communicating almost daily with Natives of India, and he thought he know better than the hon. Member for South-wark what would suit them. He believed it to be expedient that the Executive Government in India should be essentially British, but that British authority should be exercised with a due regard to, the wishes of the Natives, and that proper means should be taken to ascertain what those wishes were. He did not think that either the clause or the Amendment was well designed for the purpose. He should prefer to leave it to the Governor General to take those means which were most appropriate to the particular circumstances of each case in which laws affecting the Natives were to be made. For instance, there was a very important class in India—the noble of the Deccan; and the proper mode of legislating for them was for the Governor to call a meeting of them, and consult them upon any law affecting their interests. But if two merchants of Bombay, for example, were sent to the Legislative Council as representatives of their opinions, it would be an insult to the nobles of the Deccan. If they wished to maintain British ascendency in India, power should be left in the hands of the representatives of England,

LORD STANLEY
said, he hoped the hon. Member for Southwark would withdraw his Amendment, and leave the matter 1354 in the hands of the Secretary of State and the Governor General. Although he admitted it was quite right that Natives should be admitted to legislative power in India, yet he could not help feeling that there would be considerable difficulty in carrying out any scheme for such a purpose, and that difficulty would be increased by the mere fact of the paucity in number of the representatives required. For it would not be an easy matter to find in so large a population as that of India three or four individuals so vastly superior to the rest that their appointment to a seat in the Legislative Council would excite no jealousy. Then, again, the different nationalities and religions into which the Indian community at large was divided would super add difficulties of another character. For instance, a Mahommedan would not consider himself at all represented by a Hindoo; nor would a great landowner of the North Western Provinces or a Talookdar of Oude, feel his position at all bettered because a respectable Calcutta Baboo was allowed a seat in the Council. He, therefore, thought it would be much better that the Amendment should be withdrawn.

§ COLONEL SYKES
said, the effect of the noble Lord's arguments was, that because it was difficult to find representatives of the different grades in India, ergo there should be no representation at all.

MR. DANBY SEYMOUR
said, he agreed with the hon. Member that the number of Native Councillors should be fixed, and believed that the feeling of the Natives would be that their race was honoured by such a provision being made by the Imperial Parliament. In former times the Natives governed the country, and India produced statesmen and warriors. European communities were unable at first to exercise political power after they had for a long time been debarred from it, and in the same way the Natives of India ought to be taught how to use it. The Act would be a beginning, and, therefore, he hoped the hon. Member would divide.

§ MR. LAYARD
said, he felt that after the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman he would not forward the cause he had espoused by pressing his Amendment to a division. He consented to withdraw it on the distinct understanding that the right hon. Gentleman would instruct the Governor General and the Governors of Provinces to appoint Natives as Members of the Councils.

§ MR. VANSITTART
said, that the effect of appointing non-official Members of the Council for only a year would be to render them mere dummies. A man could not be expected to master the business of the Council in so short a time, and he doubted whether any respectable non-official persons would consent to serve for so brief a term of office. He regretted very much that the Chief Justice, Sir Barnes Peacocke, had not a seat in the Council. It was owing very much to the able and untiring exertions of Sir Barnes Peacocke that the revision of Lord Macaulay's code had been completed; and, indeed, it had been through his assistance that nearly every valuable measure of late years had been passed. When information of the constitution of the Council, under the present Bill reached Calcutta, he believed it would be received with scorn and indignation. With the view of infusing a little independence into the Council, he would move an Amendment to the effect that five years should be substituted for one year as the term of office of non-official Members.

§ MR. BRIGHT
said, that in looking over the Bill no clause surprised him more than this. He thought the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment had not stated one-half of the arguments that might be used against the proposition in the Bill. It seemed these additional Members were to be nominated by the Governor General, and they were to be appointed only for one year, and were to have no salary, although their expenses would be paid. Every element of independence as regarded these Members was taken away. The person going into office for twelve months knew who put him there, and he also knew who could exclude him when his term of office had expired. The only element of independence was that there was no salary attached to the office, and there being no inducement of a pecuniary nature for retaining office, the man might snap his finger at the Governor General, and say, "I do not care whether you appoint me for another year or not—I get nothing by it." It appeared to him that nothing could be arranged more cleverly for making it a difficult matter to get good and efficient Members, and when they had got them to keep them. He was not prepared to go the length of saying that those Members should retain office for five 1356 years, but he thought three years was the shortest term for which they should be appointed. As the clause at present stood there was no inducement to those Members to do that which they wanted them to do—namely, to exercise their own honest faculties for the good of the country. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would agree to the proposed alteration, for by adhering to the clause in its present shape he would go far to mar the constitution of this Council.

§ MR. TORRENS
observed that Lord Canning had recommended that non-official Members should he appointed for two years.

§ MR. CRAWFORD
said, he concurred with the hon. Gentleman opposite and the hon. Member for Birmingham in the objection they had taken to the term of one year, because he could not but feel that gentlemen who were only placed in office for one year would to a great extent be under the control of the Governor General. If they were to show an independence which was distasteful to him he would naturally be disposed to exercise the power which was vested in him—of appointing some one else at the end of the year. He should, therefore, support the Amendment, with the alteration proposed in it by the hon. Member for Birmingham.

LORD STANLEY
said, that three things were required in a member of any legislative body—independence, experience, and zeal and interest in the public service. Under this clause none of these qualifications would be obtained. Who would take a seat in that House for only twelve months? If they wanted Europeans, men of wealth and position, to give up their occupations and devote themselves to the transaction of public business they must hold out to them some better prospect than that of a year's seat in this Council, with the chance of the almost ignominy of a removal at the end of that period. It was also worth considering whether the Government might not find it in practice more difficult to get rid of a member of Council appointed for this short period than they would do if the appointment was extended. If the members were appointed for only one year it would probably become the practice to re-appoint them, and their removal, except on the ground of some obvious disqualification would be invidious, while if they sat for five, four, or three years it would be understood that they had no claim to be appointed again.

§ MR. ADAM
said, he agreed that European members of the Council ought to be appointed for three or five years. But the period of one year had been fixed in order to enable the Governor General, when up the country, to call into his Council any Native princes or ministers of the State in which he might be, whose advice he might think it desirable to take. It would be inconvenient to require the services of such persons for more than a year.

LORD STANLEY
said, that although appointed for a longer period, they might resign at the end of a year.

§ SIR CHARLES WOOD
said, there could not be the slightest doubt that the clause involved a very difficult question. It had been founded on an opinion of Earl Canning, who had written— Two things are essential in forming a body of advisers for the Governor General; one, that it should be capable of being assembled for business at other places than Calcutta…. To secure, therefore, those who are not ex officio members of the Council, the appointment should be for a short term—certainly not longer than two years, and I think a single year would be better. Let hon. Gentlemen consider what would in all probability be the course of proceeding. The object was to give the Governor General, in his Legislative Council, the best advice and assistance, and the most intelligent persons that could be got. The Governor General and his Executive Council would prepare the Bills, and have them laid before the Legislative Council, which would be summoned when a sufficient number of Bills were prepared. The European Members of Council would probably be great merchants or great planters in the neighbourhood of Calcutta, such men as the chairman of the Chamber of Commerce at Calcutta, or of the Planters' Association. It could not be expected that persons so engaged in business would sacrifice my very large portion of their time to the public service; and he was, therefore, afraid that if these appointments were made for so long a period as five or three years, many men who were well fitted to be members of this Council would be deterred from accepting seats in it. At the same time, they would, even if only appointed for a year, be perfectly independent, because they would receive no salary, and might resign directly if they thought that they were not properly treated. Then as to the Native Members of the Council, the Governor General contemplated holding the Councils elsewhere than in Calcutta, and it could not be expected that 1358 persons would attend them for away for more than one year. Lord Canning's object probably was to hold meetings of the Council at different places in different years, and to vary some of the persons summoned, according to the locality where the Council sat. He thought, therefore, it would create an obstacle to the obtaining of Natives if the appointments were for more than one year. He could quite understand a Native of the upper part of India being willing to take his place for a session at Agra, or any place in the upper part of India, but he did not think they would like to be employed for five years. He could not see there was any chance of their becoming dependent upon the Governor General, because they would receive no salary.

§ MR. BRIGHT
said, that the right hon. Gentleman's notion of the Council was totally different from that which was passing in the minds of the Committee. He was hardly able to conceive the ludicrous position in which Earl Canning would be placed if the right hon. Gentleman's idea was carried out. At the beginning of the year he would have to publish a programme of where he would travel, and when he was appointing the Members for the next year he would appoint some men in Calcutta, then some gentlemen of position at Delhi, and others in the neighbourhood of Lahore. In fact, the Council would not be what the Committee understood they were about making. What the Governor General should do was to have his Council stationed at the seat of Government, and, when he travelled take the advice of the Oudo talookdars and the Native gentlemen of the Punjab, as, no doubt, he had been taking it during his late progress. That would be better most certainly than bringing men from their towns and changing them every year. It appeared to him to be a most preposterous proposition. Either the right hon. Gentleman must have entirely mistaken Earl Canning's views with regard to it, or they were both at variance with the views of the House in requesting the Council. The plan would, he believed, be most undesirable, and would be fatal to the working of the Bill. He thought the right hon. Gentleman might go too far in his deference to Earl Canning. He (Mr. Bright) had deferred to him in some matters; but, in regard to this proposal, he thought the Committee was quite as competent as Earl Canning to form an opinion; and he was satisfied the opinion of the Committee was 1359 adverse to the right hon. Gentleman, and in favour of three years instead of two or one.

§ SIR CHARLES WOOD
said, it seemed to him that the plan suggested by Lord Canning was the only way of securing the assistance of the Natives. The Committee had decided that it was most desirable to have Natives Members taking their part, and voting in the Council, and not merely, as in Native States, to express an opinion in durbar. He agreed that the Councils should seldom be moved from Calcutta; but the Governor General did contemplate its meeting sometimes at Delhi or Lahore. The Governor General knew when he was going to make a tour in the provinces, and he could without difficulty arrange to have the Councils held in accordance with these arrangements. But he thought to extend the time of service would be practically to exclude the Natives from serving on the Councils.

§ MR. H. BAILLIE
said, the right hon. Baronet seemed to contemplate that the Governor General, when he travelled through the Northern Provinces, would take his Council with him; but that had never been the practice, the Council having always been kept at Calcutta. He agreed with the hon. Member for Birmingham that the Council of India ought to be a stationary body.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, that if the Members of the Council were appointed only for one year, they would become completely subservient to the Governor General, because, if they took a view different from him or his Government, their services could be easily dispensed with at the end of that period. He hoped, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman would consent to the appointments being for three years. It was true it might be desirable to prevent the new Council from being as troublesome as the old one; but, on the other hand, if the Natives were summoned only for twelve months, the Council would be a sham. He could not help thinking that as great care had been taken to limit the action of the Council, and to secure a large majority for the Government, the period of a Member's appointment might be sufficiently extended to guarantee his independence. He did not see how an effective Council could be got if it were nominated for a less period than three years.

§ MR. CAYLEY
said, that on Indian matters he had some weakness for the opinions of the hon. Member for Birming- 1360 ham. However, on this occasion, he thought there was more reason in what was said on the other side, founded as it was, on the opinion, not only of the Governor General but also of the Council, and he thought the Committee would act unwisely in setting its opinion against the unanimous decisions of so many high authorities.

§ MR. CRAWFORD
said that the peripatetic character of the Council was objected to, but it might be so arranged that the non-official members should be summoned only as long as it was sitting at Calcutta. It was desirable that the Natives should be called in to the assistance of the Governor General, not merely for what their opinion was worth, but to invest them with the dignity attaching to legislators.

§ MR. AYRTON
said, the House, forgetting that every written constitution ended in a revolution, had tried its hand two or three times in the last thirty years, and all their attempts had broken down. They were now about to frame a new constitution more precise and complex than its predecessors, without providing any means for bringing the legislative body into harmony with the executive authority. Instead of making the Governor General the true representative of the Queen, they had conferred upon him no power by the exercise of which he might allow or disallow the acts of the legislative councils.

§ MR. LAYARD
said, it appeared to him that the only objection made to the three years was that some Natives whom it was thought desirable should be Members, and who resided at a distance from the usual seat of the Council, would not like to be called on to serve for more than one year. But that difficulty could be easily got over by giving the Governor General, at any time he required the assistance of Natives from particular provinces, power to appoint two extraordinary Members when he visited those provinces accompanied by members of his Council.

MR. DANBY SEYMOUR
said, he thought that if the Legislative Council was to do any good it must be stationary. Earl Canning seemed to think that he had found the Council troublesome for the last five years, but he contended that, looking at what they had done, the balance of good against evil was clearly in their favour. He did not believe that this Bill would be permanent if it were agreed to, and he should suggest that if the right hon. Gen- 1361 tleman could not agree to the Amendment, he should reconsider the clause.

LORD STANLEY
said, he hoped that his hon. Friend (Mr. Vansittart) would persevere with his Amendment. His hon. Friend would, perhaps, think it well to substitute "three" for "five" years, and then submitting the Amendment to the Committee in its amended shape.

§ MR. GREGSON
said, it would be a good deal for men whose time was already fully occupied to give up even one year.

§ MR. W. EWART
observed that in his opinion three years was the preferable period; for those who desired not to serve longer than one year could resign at the end of that term.

§ MR. VANSITTART
said, he would adopt the suggestion of his noble Friend and substitute "three" for "five" years; but he would then make a stand and divide the Committee on his Amendment.

§ MR. BRIGHT
said, he hoped it would not be necessary to divide upon the Amendment. It might be assumed that the Committee was against one year, and in favour of three; and if it was desirable to have the services of a large proprietor or a rajah in the upper country, when the Governor General was on his travels, nothing would be easier in such a case than to give the Governor General power to appoint two or three extraordinary Members of Council. It would be most unfortunate if they destroyed the work of the Council at Calcutta for some doubtful or visionary advantage of catching a wise man at some distance from Calcutta.

§ SIR CHARLES WOOD
said, he thought that the intention of Earl Canning might be gathered from his despatches. He was very unwilling to go beyond the period suggested by the Governor General, but he would so far give way to the opinions which had been expressed by the Committee as to take the longest period named by him, and would, therefore, substitute two years for one.

§ MR. BRIGHT
asked, whether Members would have power to move for Returns?

§ SIR CHARLES WOOD
replied that they would, if the Motion related to business before the Council.

§ MR. BRIGHT
said, he regretted that this and the three following clauses had been inserted in the Bill, as they would tend to cripple the actions of the Council.

§ COLONEL SYKES
concurred in that opinion, and said that the effect of the clause would be to deprive the Council of all power.

§ SIR CHARLES WOOD
replied, that the clauses were passed with due regard to the facilitating of public business in the Council.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, that it was contemplated that an official Report should be published of the proceedings of the Council; but it was of great importance that independent Reports should be published from day to day. Earl Canning appeared to contemplate that the proceedings should be as in Committee; and published only after all was over.

§ SIR CHARLES WOOD
said, that Lord Canning in his despatches, which were in the hands of hon. Members, had very clearly expressed his views on this subject. Lord Canning thought that open debate ought to be the rule, but in certain cases, as when the Council met in the Punjab or Oude, where the Natives did not understand English, the Reports, unless some precautions were taken₃ would give the arguments only on one side. In such cases there would be frequent official Reports of the proceedings.

§ MR. BRIGHT
said, he did not think the Governor General was likely to put in his Council men who could not speak English, and he could inform the right hon. Gentleman that he had never heard an Englishman speak English so perfectly as one of the Natives of India whom he had known. The question really was whether the Governor General in Council should make rules for the conduct of business of the Legislative Council, or whether the Legislative Council should make rules for itself. In the former case there would be no security for free discussion. Unless Earl Canning was more liberal than he was suspected to be the Council would have no power of debate whatever—no power to do anything without the permission of the Governor General. If he had had the 1363 drawing of the clause he should have substituted words to this effect:—"Rules and orders for the conduct of business at meeting of Council for the purpose of making laws and regulations shall be made by the Council, and may be subsequently amended by the Council if it shall see fit; and such rules shall provide the mode of promulgation and authentication of such laws and regulations; and the meetings of Council for the purpose of making such laws and regulations shall be open to the public as heretofore, at the discretion of the Council." He thought it right that legislative assemblies should have the right to close their doors on special occasions. The House of Commons possessed that right, although they had not exercised it for many years. But he thought that if the right hon. Secretary of State would follow Earl Canning's suggestions in a more liberal spirit, remembering that his Lordship had drawn up the Bill with the intention of giving an apparent freedom, and at the same time giving as little of it as possible, the result would be better for India as well as for this country.

§ SIR CHARLES WOOD
said, he must remind the Committee that they were dealing with edged tools in legislating for the Native population of India. It had happened before now that the minds of the Natives had been inflamed to a great extent by incorrect and garbled reports of speeches. It would be much safer to leave it to the Governor General to decide to what extent publicity should be given to these debates. If the practice in this country were modified it would only be so far as to insure an authentic report of the speeches.

§ MR. W. EWART
said, he had put down a notice on the paper to move the admission of the public and the press at the meetings of the Councils. He would not propose his Motion, but he trusted that the Governor General of India would not lose sight of the advantages of publicity, which would be one of the most valuable inheritances we could give to India.

§ MR. H. BAILLIE
said, he would beg to remind the Committee that Earl Canning himself admitted that publicity ought to be the rule, and that it was necessary for the Government occasionally to interfere to prevent the publication of one-sided reports. He thought the Bill went as far as the Committee could expect.

MR. DANBY SEYMOUR
said, he wished to know whether it was intended that 1364 the Reports of the proceeding in Council should only be published after the lapse of some time? If so, what took place would be sure to ooze out, and those who desired to give an incorrect account of the proceedings would, of course, resort to misrepresentation. To prevent that the best way was to have the fullest publicity. It was said that the Native gentlemen in the North were not able to speak English, and, consequently, could not take part in the debates; but why should not the same course be followed as was pursued in Canada, where two languages were spoken, and where each speaker expressed his opinions in his own language? However, he believed that in the greater part of India there would not be very many Native gentlemen among those chosen to sit in the Council who would be unable to speak or understand English. For these reasons he should be ready to propose the postponement of the clause until some other provision were produced more in accordance with the general feeling of the House.

§ MR. LAYARD
said, that he was disposed to agree that incorrect reports might be injurious; but would it not be possible that authentic and official reports should be forwarded day by day to the papers? No doubt the great object of publicity was that the Natives should have an opportunity of expressing their opinion upon measures which were passing through the Council. It could be of no avail that they should only be able to express themselves after the measures had become law.

§ SIR CHARLES WOOD
said, he thought nobody would say that the House should, by Act of Parliament, enact whether the proceedings of the Council should be published every day or not. All he could say was, that he had endeavoured to state to the Committee what was the opinion of the Governor General on the subject. It was certainly to the effect that publicity was to be the rule; but that with regard to the proceedings of the Councils of the Governor General of the north-west provinces and of the Punjab, in which Natives from the upper provinces of India, not understanding the English language would probably sit, the rule should be modified to a certain extent. He did not draw the inference therefrom that it was meant that the report should only appear after a long delay, for the Governor General thought it desirable that there should be frequent authorised reports of the proceedings, in order that the Natives might 1365 not be misled by incorrect representations. The other day Sir Barnes Peacock expressed a doubt in Council as to the validity of the legal title by which all those Native chiefs to whom grants of land had been made held their lands. That expression of opinion had given rise to much alarm, and it was an instance of the danger which might arise from a too free publication of everything which might, perhaps indiscreetly, be let fall in debate.

MR. J. B. SMITH
observed, that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for India, on introducing the Bill, quoted a letter from Mr. Laing, in which that gentleman stated that great advantages had accrued from the open discussions in the Legislative Councils. If the debates were published at all, they should, in his opinion, be published from day to day, and he should remind the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for India that there was a Native press existing in that country which discussed with great ability the questions which came before the Legislature. They had, he might add, sometimes erred in their legislation for India, because they were not thoroughly acquainted with Native opinion; and the best way, he should contend, to obtain that opinion was by making public the debates in the proposed Council in the mode which he suggested. Entertaining those views, he hoped the hon. Member for Birmingham would persevere in his Motion, and could not refrain, from expressing a wish that the right hon. Secretary for India would withdraw the clause under discussion, and reconsider it.

§ MR. BRIGHT
maintained that if Earl Canning were to place on the Council Natives who could neither speak nor understand English, he would be departing from the objects of the Bill and the intentions of the House of Commons. He might further observe that he had no desire to appear to oppose the right hon. Gentleman in the efforts which he believed he was honestly making to improve the government of India, while he at the same time hoped that he would consent to reconsider the clause under the notice of the Committee, with the view of mitigating its stringency. Should he not take that course, there still could be little doubt that the privilege which was contended for would ultimately become an accomplished fact and there could, therefore, be no valid objection to rendering the clause more liberal, so that when the Council met they should not be fighting against the Governor General, as 1366 would certainly be the case if they were men animated by feelings of independence and self-respect, and if they were not it would be better there should be no Council at all.

§ MR. LAYARD
said, he did not think the time had yet come when a knowledge of English should become an absolute qualification for the Council. There were many very intelligent Natives who could neither speak nor understand English.

§ SIR CHARLES WOOD
said, he was surprised that the hon. Member for Birmingham should throw difficulties in the way of the admission of Natives to the Council. It would be highly inexpedient that rules should be laid down in this country prescribing the standing orders for the conduct of business in the Councils in India.

§ MR. LAYARD
suggested that objections would be met by providing that the necessary rules and regulations should be framed by the Council and submitted to the Governor General for his approval.

§ SIR CHARLES WOOD
said, he did not think that would be the best mode of proceeding.

MR. DANBY SEYMOUR
said, he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would consent to postpone the clause.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not persist in his Motion, so as to press it to a division.

§ SIR CHARLES WOOD
said, he was unable to see that any advantage would be obtained by postponement.

§ MR. BRIGHT
said, he looked upon the arrangement proposed by the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Layard) ns one which would be, to some extent, satisfactory.

§ MR. VANSITTART
inquired whether any provision would be made for Mr. Harrington, Mr. Erskine, and Mr. Forbes? Mr. Harrington was the author of the financial proposals which Mr. Laing had adopted.

§ SIR CHARLES WOOD
said, that with respect to the case of Mr. Harrington and others it was a subject under consideration.

§ MR. VANSITTART
said, he would propose, as an Amendment, that the appointments should be made for five years. The local councils would be stationary, and, therefore, in a very different position to that of the general Council. His object was to induce the non-official Members of the Councils to take an interest in them, and also to infuse a little independence into the Councils themselves.

§ SIR CHARLES WOOD
said, he was willing that the appointments should be made for two years, instead of one year.

§ MR. VANSITTART
said, he could not accept two years, but he would be content with three, and altered his Amendment accordingly.

§ COLONEL SYKES
said, he considered that the period of office should be three years at least.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
observed that the suggestion of Earl Canning, that the period of office should be one year, was solely applicable to the general Council.

MR. DANBY SEYMOUR
said, he thought it was a pity that the Members of the Council should not go out one or two at a time instead of all going out together.

§ MR. BRIGHT
observed that when they were discussing a similar question in regard to the Calcutta Council, the right hon. Gentleman's opinion went with the Committee, that two years were better than one, and the only reason why he did not consent to the appeals made to him in favour of the alteration was that he did not wish to depart from the law laid down by Earl Canning, but he had consented to take the maximum that Earl Canning proposed. But the argument of Earl Canning did not apply to those local Councils, and, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman was quite free to adopt the term of three years. He did not speak of this as a matter of paramount importance, but, seeing how many had expressed an opinion in favour of a longer term with regard to the general Council, and the right hon. Gentleman had carried his views without a division, he thought the three years might be conceded for the local Councils.

§ SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONE
said, he could not see why the period should be limited at all.

§ SIR CHARLES WOOD
said, that Lord Canning was of opinion that persons would be more anxious to give their services for 1368 a year than they would be if they were asked to serve for a longer period, and they would be, consequently, more likely to obtain the services of eligible persons. That was no reason, however, why they should not be appointed year by year for the term of their natural lives. He was inclined to think that it was the wisest course to adhere to the period he had fixed upon.

MR. J. B. SMITH
said, that members appointed for three years would be more independent than if they were only appointed for one year. If they did not wish to serve for a longer period than a year there was nothing to prevent them from resigning.

§ MR. LAYARD
said, he wished to know what was meant by the words at the end of the clause, "affecting the public revenue of the Presidencies?"

§ SIR CHARLES WOOD
said, what was meant was that no financial measure should be introduced without the sanction of the Governor General.

§ MR. BRIGHT
said, he wished to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman meant that no member should be able to propose a resolution on the question of revenue as they could in that House? Any Member of that House could give notice that on a certain day he would move that the House should go into Committee to take a certain thing into consideration. Was that privilege to be allowed in India?

§ SIR CHARLES WOOD
was understood to say that the effect in India would be precisely the same as in this country.

§ SIR CHARLES WOOD
said, the local Councils would be competent to deal with internal improvements or any other subjects of purely local concern, but questions of general policy must, of course, be re- 1369 served for a higher authority. It certainly was not intended to exclude railways from the operation of this clause.

MR. DANBY SEYMOUR
asked whether, supposing the Legislative Council of all India should propose to put on an income tax the local Council would be able to take that tax into consideration?

§ SIR CHARLES WOOD
No.

§ MR. BRIGHT
And, therefore, if in any one of the provinces it was found that some tax was working very perniciously, much more so than others, I presume the local Council would not have power to meet to pass any resolution about it, or to make any representation with regard to it to the Legislative Council of Calcutta, without the consent of the Governor General? The effect of that will be to circumscribe the action of the local Councils very much.

LORD STANLEY
said, he should be glad to know what class of subjects would come within the province of the local Councils to deal with, as almost every matter of public importance would fall within one or other of the categories included in the clause.

§ SIR CHARLES WOOD
said, the measures that were set out, and which it would not be competent for the local Councils to deal with, were almost exclusively measures that must necessarily extend beyond the limits of the presidencies. Let them take, for instance, the conveyance of the post-office or the electric telegraph, the general code of India, and the naval and military forces of the Crown. All these were matters to be dealt with by the central authority, and not by the local Councils. Then, again, as to their relations with foreign powers, no person would say that was a question which the local governments should have the power to deal with.

§ MR. CRAWFORD
said, he might mention for the information of the noble Lord (Lord Stanley)that the local Councils would have the power of granting acts to corporations for local purposes, such as the power to raise local rates and tolls to effect improvements. There were various other subjects which would come within the scope of the local governments.

§ SIR CHARLES WOOD
moved a new clause, consequential upon clause 50, providing for the temporary discharge of the duties of the Governor General in the event of a vacancy occurring.