§ LORD WILLIAM HAYsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether, when directing the Governor General of India to appoint a Commission of Inquiry into the circumstances attending the failure of the Bank of Bombay, "with full powers to conduct the inquiry," his attention was given to the 6th and 7th paragraphs of a Minute by his Excellency the Governor of Bombay, dated the 15th of August, 1867, in which he declared that—
No investigation by a Commission can be complete, unless that Commission has power to compel the attendance of witnesses, the production of papers, vouchers, and books, and to examine on oath;and that—An Act of the (Bombay) Legislative Council might give these powers within the Presidency only; an Act of the Legislative Council of the Governor General would give the more extended power throughout India; but neither would enable the Commission to examine parties in England, where, perhaps, the most important evidence might have to be obtained, and without which the inquiry could not be said to be complete;and, if so, whether he has taken any steps to empower the Commission, appointed in pursuance of his instructions, to examine or to procure the examination on oath of witnesses in England?
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, in reply, that his attention had, of course, been directed to the observations which had been made upon this subject by the Governor of Bombay, and he was also perfectly aware that the duties of a Commission of Inquiry could not be properly carried out without legislative powers. He very much doubted, however, whether it would be necessary to give compulsory powers with reference to the examination of witnesses in this country. He had recently received a telegram from the Viceroy of India, who stated that he proposed to introduce a Bill in the Legislative Council with a view to giving to the Commission more extended power throughout India. The Viceroy also requested that he (Sir Stafford Northcote) would nominate one member to serve on the Commission, and he had accordingly nominated Sir Charles Jackson. He had further telegraphed to India and requested to be furnished with the names of the members of the Commission, but he had not yet received an answer. Considering that the Commissioners would find all records and books in India, and that nearly all the witnesses were in that 1224 country, it would probably be unnecessary to confer upon them powers for the examination of witnesses in England.
MR. J. PEELsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether the Act of 1863, which is said to have led to the mismanagement and failure of the Bank of Bombay, was not submitted to and approved by the Secretary of State for India before it was passed by the Council of Bombay?
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEreplied that it had not been submitted to the Secretary of State before it passed the Council of Bombay; but after it had been passed by the Council and had received the sanction of the Governor General it was sent home. It then appeared to have been reviewed by the Secretary of State, who wrote to India to say that he saw no reason for disallowing the sanction which the Act had received at the hands of the Viceroy.