Sitting of 12 July 1833

MINUTES.
Papers ordered. On the Motion of Mr. POULETT THOMSON, an Account of the present and prospective Amount of Saving effected in the Navy Pay Office in the Salaries of Officers and Clerks.—On the Motion of Mr. O'DWYER, an Account of the Income and Expenditure, with other Particulars, of the Corporation of Drogheda.—On the Motion of Mr. SULLIVAN, a Copy of the Report of Mr. Griffith, a Government Engineer, respecting an Intended Line of Canal between Kilkenny and Inistioge, and a Copy of any Correspondence with the Irish Government on the subject.—On the Motion of Mr. HOWARD, the Names of Persons Assessed for the first time to the House Duty in 1832, and of Persons discharged on Appeal by Commissioners for the Township of Whitehaven and Preston Quarter.—On the Motion of Mr. SPRING RICE, an Account of the Establishments of the Public Departments, and Offices, in 1821 and 1832, respectively, showing the Reductions made, and those intended to be made.—On the Motion of Mr. E. RUTHVEN, the Amount of Pipe-Water Tax levied in Dublin, during the last seven years.
Petitions presented. By Mr. BOLLING, from Bolton, in favour of the Rating of Tenements Bill.—By Mr. O'CONNELL, from St. Nicholas (Galway), against the Oppressive Conduct of the Corporation; from Dublin, against the Kingstown and Dublin Ship Canal.—By Mr. HODGES, from Benenden, against the Malt Tax and Tithes.—By Sir EDWARD KNATCHBULL, from Ramsgate, against the Notaries Public Bill.—By Mr. WILBRAHAM, from Chester, against the Monopoly of the East-India Company with regard to the Manufacture and Exportation of Salt in India.

EAST INDIA COMPANY'S CHARTER.
Mr. Charles Grantmoved the Order of the Day for the House to resolve itself into a Committee on the East-India Company's Charter Renewal Bill.
Mr. Ewart,before the Speaker left the Chair, would move, that the Committee should be instructed to consider the propriety of admitting East-India sugar and coffee (the produce of free labour) into this country, on equal terms with the produce of the slave labour of the West Indies; and to consider the propriety of giving facilities to the admission of sugar and coffee generally, the produce of free labour.
Mr. Wilbrahamsaid, he had also to move an instruction to the Committee, relating to the monopoly of salt in India, and its effect on the commerce of this country.
The Speakersaid, that according to the present regulations of the House, they could not move those instructions at the morning sitting, as it would be investing themselves with a greater power than they

617
at present possessed, which was to proceed with the measure which had been sanctioned already by the House.
Mr. Humesuggested the postponement of these points to some other more fitting period, for instance, when the General Customs' Bill should be under consideration.
Mr. Wilbrahamdid not wish to take up the time of the House; but he hoped the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Grant) would assure him of an opportunity of bringing forward his Motion at some other stage of the measure.
Mr. Charles Grantobserved, that entertaining any of these three Motions would be entering on the general principle of the revenue of India. He would, however, ill answer to the observations of the hon. Members, say, that the subject of the opium and salt monopolies in India were under the serious consideration of the Government. Any discussion which should be originated on the present occasion was but delaying the progress of the Bill. If any hon. Gentlemen wished to enter into a discussion on the revenue of India, let them appoint a day for that purpose, and he should be most happy to meet them and give them every information on the subject; of if the hon. Member were disposed, he could move his Amendment when the Committee arrived at the fourth clause of the Bill. He thought, however, it would be inconvenient to occupy the time of the House now with the subject.
Mr. C. W. Wynnsaid, the monopoly of salt affected the future government of India as much as any other matter in the plan proposed for the renewal of the Company's Charter by his Majesty's Government. The instructions he thought could be moved now, for the House had always exercised the right of giving mandatory instructions to a Committee.
The House went into Committee. On the Question, that the Preamble be postponed,
Sir Robert Inglisexpressed his satisfaction, that his right hon. friend opposite and his Majesty's Ministers had preserved so much of the mode of government and detail of management with reference to one of the largest civilized empires in the world. The Bill bore sufficient evidence, that his Majesty's Government was satisfied with the merit of the system pursued by the East-India Company. He also declared his satisfaction with the whole progress of
618
the correspondence between the Government and the East-India Company, and that it had led to such modifications as appeared reasonable to both parties. There was, however, one point omitted in the Bill, to which be would take leave to direct the attention of the House. The Government had provided, that there should be a Commission established to superintend the law; but there was no Commission provided to procure the abolition of slavery. Such a provision was, however, essential; but in dealing with it be would entreat hon. Members to bear in mind, that there were no two things in the world more different from each other than East-Indian and West Indian-slavery. In rising in this first instance to address the Committee, he felt it his duty to say, that he should have occasion, in the course of the consideration of the Bill, to claim the indulgence of the Committee very frequently.
Mr. Charles Grantsuggested, that it would be better to defer the discussion of the point referred to by the hon. Gentleman until the clause upon which his recommendation might be moved came under the consideration of the House.
Preamble postponed.
On the question, that the blank in the first clause be filled up with the words one thousand eight hundred and fifty-four, renewing the Charter till that period,
Mr. Humerose to object to the extension of the East India-Company's Charter to the year 1854. He thought, twenty years too long a period to consign the government of India into the hands of the East-India Company. In his opinion, public interest required, that some break should take place in that period; and the House should, as in the case of the Bank Charter, say, that at the end of ten years it should be open to the Government, if the public interest required it, to recall the Charter; it being impossible to say what events, political or commercial, might take place requiring the adoption of such a step. The question was whether they should bind themselves and their successors for twenty years to the present arrangement let what would happen. Circumstances might take place in India, in the mean time, to render a modification of the government in that country necessary. Should this not turn out to be the case, there was no reason to believe, that Government would make any alteration

619
at the time of the break. He thought the period of ten years a very fair trial, as the public in that time would have a very fair opportunity of seeing how far the management of the East-India Company was consistent with the public good, and it would have the effect of putting the Company upon the spur to act in the best manner they possibly could. He should, therefore, move, that the words, "30th April, 1844," be substituted for the "30th April, 1854."
Mr. Charles Grantsaid, there was no expression in the Bill which could fetter the power of Parliament to interfere, excepting as to the point which the hon. Gentleman had just alluded to. It was agreed on all hands that some term ought to be given; the question, therefore, was, what term ought to be allowed? He thought ten years too limited a term, because he agreed with the hon. Member, that much good ought to be expected, and he trusted and believed that much benefit would result from this measure; but he also believed, that the effective way to ensure the most beneficial results would be the security and stability given by the present plan to the Court of Directors. Where men had nothing to look to beyond a certain short period, they naturally became careless; but the consciousness of power and stability gave the Company a direct interest to govern India wisely. Another reason he would urge in favour of the Bill as it now stood was, the result it must have on the revenue of India. The India Company were now so intimately connected with the revenues of the country, by means of this Bill—they took upon themselves such an onus in taking upon them the management of the income, that it was obviously their own particular interest to do everything for the best in their future administration of the affairs of India. If they had, on the contrary, only a temporary terra of the government of the country—say ten years, for instance—they would naturally enough feel no such inducement to a development of its resources as was now absolutely incumbent on them, for their own sakes, to feel and force onward. These were his principal reasons for supporting the present measure, and designing to give this longer time to the Company. A difference of opinion might exist as to the particular term of years—whether it should be fifteen or twenty—but he certainly was of opinion
620
that ten years was much too short a term, and he therefore should decidedly object to the Amendment.
Mr. Humewanted merely to put the question of the renewal of the East-India Company's Charter on a footing similar to that of the Bank of England Charter. He had no objection to fix the term of the Company's government of India at twenty years; but he wished an intermediate period should be fixed—say ten years, as in the Bank Charter, when it would be optional with Parliament to re-consider the Charter, and amend, or abrogate, or continue, as they chose. He thought it a principle which ought to be particularly recognized, that great questions, such as the present, should be reviewed by the House every ten years at the least. If the right hon. Gentleman would consent to adopt and embody this suggestion, he would withdraw his Amendment.
Mr. Charles Grantcould not consent to sanction any such proposal, after the arrangement entered into between his Majesty's Government and the East-India Company, on which this present system was based. They had begun with conciliation and concession—the system was founded on a compromise with the Company—therefore, it should be persevered in as it had been begun. The real question before the House in the hon. member for Middlesex's Motion was, whether by sacrificing a little time they were not gaining the cordial co-operation of the East-India Company? And whether, for the sake of the country and the people of India, such a sacrifice was not to be considered necessary and advisable?
Mr. Buckinghamsaid, that the question of a compromise with the East-India Company, was one which the Government, as a Government, might reasonably entertain; but it was a question on which Parliament had to decide for themselves—and follow the dictates of their own feelings on the subject. With respect to the continuation of the government of India in the hands of the Company, he would say, that if Parliament granted it to them for that period, they would be granting them a longer terra of existence than they possessed themselves. He should advocate the restriction of the term to even a lesser period than that of ten years, if possible. It could be renewed if the government of the Company were found beneficial to the

621
country; but if it were not, then it would be exceedingly hard indeed, it the country could not be relieved from the consequence of their misrule.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonsaid, that the hon. member fur Sheffield had no occasion to tell the Committee that the whole question was open to discussion. If any hon. Member thought, that the terms made with the Company, were not such as the public had a right to expect, it was certainly open to him to oppose them. The hon. Member spoke of handing over India to the government of the Court of Directors. But the fact was, that the Board of Control and his Majesty's Ministers, were responsible for the government of that country, as well as the Board of Directors of the East-India Company it was the duty of the House, in making a great change in the government of India, to take care that the people of that country should have confidence in the stability of the government under which they were to be placed. But if the Charier were to be renewed every ten years, which, in fact, would limit the office of the Directors to little more than seven years, there could be no confidence in the stability of their measures. The Company, with every facility for carrying on the trade with China, had given that up for the advantage of the public, and they ought certainly to be enabled to look with confidence to the management of the territorial revenue, and to the permanence and stability of the government. He trusted, therefore, that the Committee would have no hesitation in agreeing to the Clause, as it originally stood.
Mr. Wynndid not at ail approve of the proposed arrangement. He thought it advisable, instead of limiting any particular period of ten or twenty years, that no term should be assigned, but that each party should have power to determine the agreement, on giving to the other a particular notice. The subject was one of immense importance, and involved the interests, not only of the commerce of this country, but also of millions of the inhabitants of India; and it was very material that the attention of the House should be recalled to it in a much shorter period than twenty years. Should they now vest the power of Government for a period of twenty years, if would be impossible for Parliament to terminate the arrangement before the expiration of that long term, unless there was so gross au act committed by the
622
Company as would justify the Attorney general in issuing a scire facias. It was the duly of Parliament to take care that the public interests did not suffer, as he was sure they would by granting to the Company the long period of twenty years. If his proposal to fix no specific period, but allow each party a due notice to terminate the arrangement, were not agreed to, be should certainly vote for the shorter period of ten rather than twenty yeas.
Mr. Whitmoreentirely concurred in what had been said by the hon. member for Sheffield, and he could not hesitate to vote for the Amendment. It was most desirable that the Board of Control should have the power of taking the administration of India at the end often years out of the hands of the Directors, if they should have mismanaged the trust. He could not think that the effect of that Charter could be to encourage the Directors in a profuse expenditure, for assuredly, if they should be lavish, the Board of Control would not continue them in the government of India. He did not see how the limitation was to be considered arbitrary. It was to be remembered that we were now making an experiment. We were giving the government of India to a body which was confessedly anomalous for the purposes of Government. It would be most unwise to tie up our hands for too long a period.
Mr. Macaulaysaid, the term of twenty years was originally the proposition, not of the Government, but of the Company. He agreed that the House had the power to revise any arrangement which the Government made; but he did not see why it should be treated as a nullity; on the contrary, he thought strong reasons should be required, before they set aside any part of an arrangement founded on a negotiation of which they generally approved. It was suggested to him, that the best criterion by which to know whether a country was well or ill governed, was the state of its finances—certainly, that was so. Now, if the government of India was so bad as to throw its finances into confusion, so that they should require to apply to Parliament, then that would let in the whole question in the same manner as was done in 1773 and in 1784.
Mr. Marjoribanksdid not wish to see India made the scene of an experimental Government. The great promoter of prosperity was stability, which the Amendment would entirely do away with.
Mr. Lyall,speaking disinterestedly (for be trusted that the House would believe that his being a Director would not influence him in his opinion as a Member of Parliament) would recommend to the Proprietors not to assign over the whole of their assets without having the government of India secured to them for a considerable term of years. He could assure the House, that not one of the Directors wished to retain his seat for a single hour, after it was found that they did not benefit both the people of India and England. One strong argument, however, in favour of the longer term would be, the very great fluctuation in the value of the stock which would be consequent upon the frequent discussion of the question, by which many might be ruined who depended upon their stock.
Sir Matthew White Ridleywould support the Clause as it stood. When the House passed even a Turnpike Bill, in order to give a feeling of certainty, it fixed the term of twenty-one years, and surely, in a question of such magnitude, they would not depart from such a wise rule.
Mr. George Youngsaid, the House was placed in an embarrassing situation by the turn the debate had taken, and the declaration of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Grant), that the House should bear in mind that this was a compromise, although they had been before told, that the delegation of the government of India to the Company for twenty years, was done upon principle only, and not upon any compromise. He, for one, was wholly at a loss to conceive, as the Company had lost their trading powers, what interest they could possibly have in retaining the government of the country. As to whether the period of the Charter should be ten or twenty years, it could not be argued that the greater period would better ensure the payment of the dividends than if it were for only ten years. The payment of the dividends would be ensured in either case; besides, as the debt was not wholly redeemable until 1870, the Charter would fall far short of that period if it were to be granted for twenty years. He should support the Amendment.
Mr. Charles Grantsaid, he had been misunderstood. What he meant by compromise was, that, as Government might fee suspected of taking too much or giving too much, the measure had been founded on conciliatory terms.
Sir Robert Inglissaid, the question was, how could the Government of India be best conducted, with regard to the interests of that country, as well as of England? As to the period, and whether it should be ten twenty years, he should prefer the latter, because, if it were for ten years, it would be virtually only seven years, as the last two or three years would be occupied in discussing and agitating the question of renewing it; so if it were for twenty years, it would be virtually seventeen years.
Mr. Wynnadded, that the whole political Government was vested in the Board of Control; and the Court of Directors could only be considered subordinate to that, and chiefly useful as affording a check upon his Majesty's Government. He could not subscribe to the perfection of the system that had hitherto prevailed in India; for he could not forget that the natives and half castes were excluded from all employment in situations where they could be more effective than Europeans, and at a much smaller cost. The principle of employing those persons he considered to be essential to the good government of India; and he could not applaud that system which had been founded on a violation of that principle.
Mr. Robert Grantprotested against the notion, that the Company was to be considered a mere council-board to the King's Government. If he entertained that view, he would not continue the Company even ten years. It was, undoubtedly, intended to be the real governing power of India, and upon that principle he supported this measure. He would have been ready to have given the Company that power, without fixing any definite term at all; because he knew, that the most useful improvements were suspended from a consciousness that the period for reconsidering the whole system would arrive too soon to admit of the improvement being accomplished.
Mr. Finchsupported the Amendment of the hon. member for Middlesex; he felt certain, that if the question was brought forward at the end of ten years, every thing required for the interest of the public would be taken into consideration, and the honour of Parliament would not be compromised by any unfair act being committed towards the East-India Company.
Mr. Humeobserved, that it had been suggested to him that it would be better

625
to allow the clause to be filled up, and introduce his Amendment at the end of the clause. He should, therefore, at the conclusion of the Clause, propose an Amendment, to the effect that, at the termination of ten years, upon two years' notice, Parliament should be at liberty either to terminate the Company's Charter, or to take such steps to amend it as it might think proper.
The blanks in the Clause having been accordingly filled up, the hon. Member proposed his Amendment—"That at the end of ten years, Government should be at liberty to recall or amend the Charter, giving two years' notice thereof."
Mr. Robert Gordonopposed the Amendment, as calculated to give Parliament power of control over the Board of Directors, and depriving the latter of that feeling of power and reasonable stability, so essential in producing good government.
Mr. Robinsonadmitted it was true, that this Bill, in its present shape, gave the Directors the government of India for twenty years; but the Government would be subject to a species of control by Parliament, for Parliament would superintend the Board of Control. Parliament had the power at any time to repeal or alter any law made by the Governors-General in Council; annual reports also were to be made, which would enable the House constantly to have its eye on the proceedings of the Court of Directors; and without detaining the House further, he would merely say, that they ought not to let out of their hands the superintendence of the Board of Directors, on so important a question as the future good government of India.
Mr. Buckinghamsaid, the addition to the clause would prevent it being possible to disturb the Charter in less than twelve years. Surely that term was long enough, if it should then be deemed advisable to terminate or to alter the Charter. As it would be most desirable to continue these morning sittings till they got through this Bill, he suggested the propriety of extending the meetings till six o'clock, and then retire for two hours to dinner.
Mr. O'Connellobserved, that the Bill was now an anomaly. There was a trading Company which had lost its power to trade. It was obvious that the difficulties of the subject arose from the apprehended results of taking the Government of India from the Company, and transferring it to
626
the Administration, which would be an immense increase of patronage; or of leaving it to the authorities and individuals in India. That the power of reconsideration might not be so long postponed, he should support the Amendment.
It being three o'clock, the Chairman reported progress. In the evening the House again went into Committee, and resumed the consideration of Mr. Hume's Amendment.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, the only object of the House in legislating on this subject should be, the welfare and happiness of our Hindoo subjects. This principle had been recognised by the Court of Proprietors as the only ground of their acceptance of what they appeared to treat as a burthen imposed on them. No valuable consideration was given. Under these circumstances, therefore, it was highly desirable that the House should have an opportunity, at the end of ten years—if they found the plan did not effect its object—of terminating the present arrangement on two years' notice.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonsaid, that no reason had been given for this limitation. It was highly important that the Government of India should be assured to the Company for a sufficient term, because their dividends were to be paid out of the surplus of the territorial revenue—thus giving them the strongest interest in the good government of India. In considering the claim of the Company, the large property given up by them should not be left out of consideration.
Mr. Ewartthought it desirable that an arrangement of this kind should be terminable in as short a time as possible, should Parliament think it advisable.
Mr. Hardysaid, he would support the opinions advanced by the hon. member for Middlesex upon this question, that of extending their Charter ten years, with power on the part of the Government to extend it two years further. Now it did not follow that it was necessarily to cease at either period; because, if the government of the East India Company went on well, and as it ought to do, there would be good ground for renewing the Charter. The Amendment therefore proposed no absolute restriction; but, as the present plan was an experiment, if it did not succeed, Parliament ought to have the power of stopping it. Ten years was neither too long nor too short a period of trial.
Lord Sandonopposed the Amendment, on the ground that, it was impossible for the government of India, during the lime proposed, to make those improvements in the arrangements of the revenue, and the government in general, which were necessary to give stability and consistency to the government of India.
Mr. Humeobserved, that the argument of the noble Lord would justify their extending the duration of Parliament to fourteen or twenty years. The question was simply one of responsibility. If they wished to hold the Company responsible for the exercise of their sovereign power, they must limit the duration of the possession of that power to the shortest period consistent with its efficiency. Parliament ought to retain in its own hands the power of making any alteration in the government of India, and all the purposes of the measure would be answered, if the Company were to obtain the power of regulating the government of India, according to the system proposed, for ten years, subject to a notice of two years. At the same time he was anxious that it should be understood that he did not speak out of any hostility to the East-India Company.
The Committee divided on the Amendment—Ayes 26; Noes 77: Majority 51.
Clause agreed to.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Maxwell, Sir J.

Bolling, W.

Potter, R.

Brotherton, J.

Richards, J.

Buckingham, J. S.

Tennyson, Rt. Hon. C.

Dillwyn, L. W.

Turner, W.

Ewart, W.

Vigors, N. A.

Faithfull, G.

Wallace, R.

Finch, G.

Warre, J. A.

Gaskell, D.

Whitmore, W. W.

Gillon, W. D.

Williams, Colonel

Hardy, J.

Wynn, Rt. Hn. C. W.

Irving, J.

Young, G. F.

James, W.

TELLER.

Lister, C.

Hume, J.

On the third Clause being put,
Mr. Charles Marjoribanksbegged leave to call the attention of the Committee to the effect which the Resolution that deferred the opening of the China trade to British shipping till the 22nd of April, 1834, would have on British commerce. The effect of this would be, the throwing the whole China trade, for some five months, into the hands of foreigners, for the Company's vessels cleared out from China in the month of January. The Report on
628
the China Trade Acts, which contained that Resolution, stood so low down on the Orders of the Day, that he feared it could not be brought in at an hour early enough for a full discussion; he therefore hoped the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. C. Grant) would bring it up at an early hour, if possible.
Clause agreed to.
The 4th Clause was postponed.
On Clause 6th being put,
Mr. Charles Marjoribankstook the opportunity of stating, that there was no branch of the Company's service more entitled to the Company's gratitude than its navy. It was the finest commercial navy ever known in the world. For the last thirty years there had not been an instance of a 1200 ton ship, on her return voyage, being lost.
Mr. Humebegged to observe, that if the Company's navy had been the finest in the world, it had also been the most expensive. He did not disparage the talent of the officers, for a more efficient set of men never set foot on ship-board; but the Company's naval service was too expensive.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonsaid, that the Company by Act of Parliament, were compelled to equip their ships in a particular way in case of war.
Mr. Charles Marjoribanksdoubled whether the Company's ships, upon the long run, were more expensive than other ships. They had been the means of saving a great deal of expense by affording that protection to trade, for which king's ships would otherwise be required. The hon. member for Middlesex could not surely forget, that a fleet of East Indiamen beat Admiral Linois.
Mr. Claysaid, perhaps it might not be inappropriate for him to say a few words in reference to the distress which would be produced in particular districts of the metropolis, and among a particular class of the community of the naval establishment, if the Company were at once broken up. He was quite aware that there was very great difficulty in any Member of the House adverting to the propriety of the Company's continuing to trade, when the Company themselves seemed to have consented, as a part of their bargain with the Government, that their trade should be abandoned. But, as the mode in which the mercantile concerns of the Company were to be wound up, was still under consideration,

629
he hoped that some attention would be paid to the interests of that considerable portion of the community who, in the eastern suburbs of the metropolis, were dependent for subsistence upon the trading establishment of the Company. The prudent course would be to allow the Company to withdraw gradually from trade, instead of being compelled to give it up at once.
Mr. Charles Grantlamented, as sincerely as the hon. Member, the effect that must inevitably be produced upon a considerable portion of the community, in the vicinity of the Company's trading establishments. If it were possible to obviate this difficulty, he should be most happy to do so; the subject had been, and still was, under the serious consideration of his Majesty's Government. Aware, however, that no precaution could entirely avert the pressure that must, for a certain period, weigh upon particular classes in consequence of the transition of the trade from the Company to the general merchant, he hoped, that it would not be so ruinous as the hon. Gentleman expected. The hon. Gentleman wished the Company gradually to withdraw from trade. When the opportunity for discussing that question arrived, he should have no difficulty in proving that there was no option, and that the trade must be discontinued at once. If it were not a matter of necessity, one of the greatest benefits of the measure to the country at large would be, the complete cessation of the Company's trade at the expiration of their Charter. That cessation was of the greatest importance to the commerce of the country; and he should not have done his duty if he had not used every effort to induce the Company to abandon its trade. Me hoped, notwithstanding the anticipation of some hon. Gentlemen, that it would be found that the advantages of throwing open the trade would compensate those who might suffer for a time during the transition.
Clause agreed to.
On the 17th Clause being read,
Mr. Humesaid, that the government of India could never be properly administered while the members of the Board of Control continued subject to removal on every change in the Government of this country. He suggested the propriety of making the appointment of a certain number of the Commissioners permanent.
Mr. Wynnthought, that the appointment of a Vice President, not liable to removal on a change in the Administration, and bound to constant attendance to the business of the Board, would be productive of great advantage.
Sir Robert Inglisread an extract from the evidence given before the East-India Committee by the right hon. Mr. Courtenay, in support of the propriety of some members of the Board being Permanent.
Mr. Charles Grantobserved, that the course which had been recommended by the hon. member for Middlesex, was one that could not be so easily settled as he seemed to imagine. The hon. Member desired that the majority of the Commissioners of the Board of Control should be permanently members of that Board. There would be this inconvenience attending such an arrangement, that as the Chief Commissioner must be changed with every Ministry, he might, on coming into office, find himself surrounded by men whose opinions differed from his own. He thought besides, that even if that objection did not exist, too much importance was attached to the matter, for all the routine business of the Board, everything that depended on official experience alone, might be safely intrusted to the subordinate officers of the Board, who were very well capable of discharging their duties. The officers of the Board of Control deserved this compliment from him, and he was happy to have this opportunity of paying it.
Mr. Charles Wynnwas happy to be able to add his testimony to that of his right hon. friend, as to the great efficiency of the officers of the Board of Control, and certainly, so far as they were concerned, the permanency of the members of that Board was useless.
Mr. Robert Grantobserved, that if the members of the Board were permanent, and the chief of it were not, he might often be subjected to the inconvenience of finding himself out-voted on the business of his department.
Clause agreed to.
On the 24th Clause, giving the right to proprietors to vole by attorney,
Mr. Charles Wynnsaid, he much wished to know what were the grounds of this clause, and what would be the effect of it?
Mr. Charles Grantsaid, that the reason

631
for introducing the clause was, that the constituency by which the Directors were now elected, was very limited, so that the voters were completely under the control of the existing Directors. The effect of the measure would be to extend that constituency, and it was but fair that those who happened to reside at a distance from London, and whose ill health, or advanced age, might prevent them from coming to London, should be allowed a voice in the choice of the men by whom their affairs were to be managed.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonadmitted the hardship of proprietors having to come such a distance as from Scotland to London to vote in the election of Directors, as was the case in his own election, and at their own expense too, for none of them would allow their expenses to be paid; but though he admitted this, he did not think the effect of this clause would be greatly to extend the constituency of the Directors, for most of the proprietors in England would attend, and few of those who would not attend would be at the trouble of sending an authority to have their vote given by attorney.
Mr. Charles Marjoribanksobjected to the clause. From the way in which it stood at present in the Bill, it might authorize the vote of a man actually dead. For instance, a man might die between the time of sending his power to vote by attorney and the tendering of that vote.
Mr. Macaulaysaid, that the same objection might be raised in any case where a vote was given by proxy; for instance, a peer voting for the representative peers of Scotland or Ireland might send in his list, and die before it was tendered as his vote, but unless his death was known at the place of voting at the time of the putting in of the list, his vote would be good. It was only two nights ago, in the other House, that the proxy of a noble Lord was used, but it happened that the noble Lord had expired before the proxy was tendered as a vote.
The Clause was agreed to.
The other Clauses, from the 24th to the 34th inclusive (with the exception of the 26th, which was postponed), were, after a short dicussion, agreed to with some verbal Amendments.
The 35th and 36th Clauses were agreed to with verbal Amendments.
On Clause 37th, which enacts, that
632
the Presidency of Fort William shall be divided into two, being put,
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonsuggested, that the Presidencies of Madras and Bombay should be allowed to remain on their present footing, and that there should be established at Agra a government subordinate in rank to the others, but suited to the circumstances of that part of our Indian territory. If the Presidencies of Madras and Bombay were to be reduced in the manner proposed, no men of efficient talents or high character would be induced to accept them, and the result would be that the whole of India must fall under the dominion of one governor unassisted, utterly uncontrolled—a state of things which he could but regard as fraught with much mischief.
Mr. Robert Grantthought it right that all the presidencies should be subordinate to one supreme government, which being at present fixed at Calcutta, could not conveniently be changed in locality. He should be sorry to imagine that the presidencies would be placed in such a situation under this Bill as to render the acceptance of their direction by persons of weight and character at all problematical. It was proposed to make the three presidencies equal in point of rank, and he had no doubt that competent persons would be found to act as governors. The Bill was so framed as to leave it open for future discussion whether the subordinate governments in India should have councils or not attached to them. He would therefore suggest that that point should not be brought into discussion now. It was absolutely necessary to enlarge the council of the Governor-General, and to give it more comprehensive powers, in order to relieve him in some degree from a load of business which was too much to be imposed on any one individual.
Mr. Wynnsaid, that the House should know distinctly what sort of a council the Governor-General should have, and how it was to be constituted.
Mr. Humesaid, that the Committee was consuming its time in useless discussion, for they were left unacquainted with the very point they were disputing about—namely, the establishment of councils attached to the subordinate governments. The intentions of the Government should be distinctly stated on that subject.
Mr. Hubert Grantsaid, that the whole of the plan of his Majesty's Government

633
was embodied in the Bill now before the Committee, and the Government contemplated no change that was not distinctly specified in that measure. As he had already mentioned, two points (one of them relating to the establishment of councils connected with the subordinate Governments) had been left open for future discussion, to be settled according to the discretion and judgment of the Court of Directors and the Board of Control.
Sir Robert Inglisconcurred with the hon. member for Kircudbright in thinking, that the geographic extent of the Indian possessions of this country was far too great to justify the reposing of their government in any single Individual.
Clause 37th agreed to; as were the clauses to the 40th. The House resumed; the Committee to sit again.

THE MIDDLESEX MAGISTRATES.
Colonel Evanswished to ask the Solicitor-General whether his attention had been called to a circumstance of great Importance which had occurred at the Old Bailey. An apprehension was entertained, in consequence of certain proceedings on the part of the Middlesex Magistrates, that all the Middlesex trials which had taken place there were irregular, and that the prisoners who had been convicted of very serious crimes, might again be let loose upon society. He wished to know whether his Majesty's Government knew anything of the circumstances.
The Solicitor Generalsaid, he feared there was great reason to apprehend, though he imputed blame to no one, that above 100 individuals had been illegally tried at the Old Bailey. The circumstances, as he understood them, were these:—Towards the end of the Sessions it was stated to the Judges that some bills of indictment had not been lawfully found; an inquiry took place into the facts, and the Judges were induced to put an end to the trials. A meeting of the Judges took place at the chambers of the Chief Justice of the King's Bench, and they were unanimously of opinion that the trials which had taken place were illegal. They caused information to be given to the Middlesex Magistrates, in order that the Grand Jury might be resummoned, the witnesses resworn, the bills again presented, and the accused retried; but the Middlesex Magistrates thought they knew the law better than the Judges. They
634
resolved that no irregularity or illegality had taken place, they prevented the Grand Jury from being resummoned, and of course prevented the possibility of the prisoners being retried. The circumstances attending the irregularity were these—the bills were to be found at the Sessions House, Clerkenwell. On Monday the Magistrates met, but on Tuesday and Wednesday no Magistrates were there, yet, during those two days, the crier went on swearing witnesses, as if the Court were sitting—those witnesses went before the Grand Jury, and upon their evidence the bills were found. The Judges were unanimously of opinion, that the crier had no authority to administer the oath, and that, therefore, the bills were not lawfully found. The Middlesex Magistrates were of a different opinion, and what under those circumstances was now to be done was more than he could tell, for there could be now no new trials, and the sentences on the prisoners could not be carried into effect.
Mr. Hughes Hughessaid, that being himself a Middlesex Magistrate, in the absence of the hon. and learned member for Knaresborough (Mr. Rotch), who was Chairman of the Middlesex Sessions, he would inform the House what those Magistrates had done when they met at the Sessions House yesterday, on Clerkenwell-green; and he would state what the course was, which they had, perhaps imprudently, adopted. It was alleged, that the Court had adjourned from Monday to Thursday, and that, in consequence, all that had been done in the interval had been illegal. They, however, found, on inquiry, that the adjournment had been from Monday to Tuesday, from Tuesday to Wednesday, and from Wednesday to Thursday, as usual. The question yesterday discussed was, whether the course which had been pursued was a regular one; and they called before them the Crier of the Court, who had been in the service of the Court for sixty years, and he said it had been the uniform practice to do as had been done in this instance, during all that period. The Crier stated, it was true, that on that and other occasions he had been alone when witnesses were sworn to go before the Grand Jury. The difficulty which the Magistrates felt was, that there was no Statute law to guide them; therefore they imagined that the ancient custom must prevail. He could only say, for himself,

635
in answer to the smiles of the hon. and learned Solicitor-General, that he had been but a short period in the Commission, and that he had only attended the Sessions three times; he was obliged to inquire what had been the custom in such a case, and particularly as there was a question whether those who had been tried and acquitted should be retried? The error, if an error, had prevailed for the last sixty years, and all the prisoners who had been convicted during that period, had been improperly condemned. As to the opinion of the Judges, it was not conveyed to the Magistrates in such a shape as to make it appear desirable to them to stultify both themselves and their predecessors. If the law were as had been stated, the prison doors had better be at once thrown open.
The Solicitor Generalsaid, that the Judges had employed au unauthorized officer, the Clerk of the Peace, to communicate with the Magistrates. He denied the existence of the practice affirmed to have existed by the hon. Member. He had made inquiries, and was convinced no such practice had ever existed. On former occasions when the Court adjourned, they met again on the adjournment day; but, on the present occasion, there was a careful attendance of Magistrates on Monday, and they adjourned to bare walls on the Tuesday and Wednesday.
Mr. Chapman,as a Magistrate for Middlesex, maintained, that the usual practice of the Court had been followed on the late occasion.
Mr. Hughes Hughessaid, that repeated instances were found on the minutes of one Magistrate only being present whilst the Grand Jury was sitting.
The Solicitor Generalsaid, the Judges did not come to their decision till they had previously examined the Crier and Officers of the Court.
Mr. O'Connell: No Magistrate was present on Tuesday. As far as he could learn, the Crier was the only Magistrate.
Mr. Hughes Hughes: Several Magistrates were in and out of the building in the course of the day, but they had no business to detain them.
Mr. O'Connell: Precisely; and so the whole dignity of the Court was left to be represented by the Crier. The Court, however, had business, witnesses were to be sworn, and bills to be brought up. If there was a Chairman, why at least did he
636
not attend? It was a most extraordinary thing that a recommendation, coming from the twelve Judges to an inferior tribunal, should not be attended to. The hon. Member spoke of the practice as customary for the last sixty years; why, he knew an instance of a man who was tried for sheep-stealing, and whose counsel set up a similar defence—namely, that sheep-stealing was so common in England, that the poor innocent man at the bar was ignorant that he was committing a crime.
Mr. Wynnentirely concurred with the hon. member for Dublin in the opinion that the Magistrates, in this instance, ought to respect the higher authority of the Judges. The House, however, ought now to consider what was to be done. No remedy appeared to lie in any existing Court, and he consequently thought, that an Act should be passed to authorize the appointment of a special commission to retry the prisoners in question.
The Solicitor Generalthought the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the best which could be acted upon.
Here the matter rested.

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By the Marquess of CAMDEN, from tile Clergy of Canterbury; by the Bishop of LINCOLN, from the Clergy of Buckingham, and other Places; and by the Bishop of BRISTOL, from the Clergy of Ossory,—against the Irish church Temporalities Bill.—By the Duke of RUTLAND, from Scarborough, in favour of the Sea Apprenticeship Bill.

LAW REFORMS.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, it would be recollected, that, in consequence of a bill which he had introduced in the last Session of Parliament, a great number of sinecure places connected with various Courts had been done

611
away with. The annual expense of those places had been 17,600 l. Some of these offices had become vacant, and others would, on and after the 15th of August, cease to exist. It would be necessary that some provision should be made for the individuals now holding those situations; that, however, would require a money bill, and must, therefore, be introduced in the other House. In consequence of the decision of their Lordships with respect to the Local Jurisdiction Bill on Tuesday last—a decision which he greatly regretted on every ground, public and private—it was no longer necessary for him to delay bringing in one or two important measures which would not have been called for if the Bill to which he alluded had been carried. He should now state what those measures were. Their Lordships would recollect, that an Ecclesiastical Commission, formed of the Judges of the Ecclesiastical Courts, a most able and learned body of men, had been appointed to inquire into the constitution of these Courts: that Commission had reported about a year ago; and, according to the recommendations of the Commissioners, he had some time ago framed several bills. He had not brought them forward at an earlier period, because he was anxious, in the first instance, to see what progress would be made in the Local Courts' Bill. The recommendation of the Commissioners had been adopted in one most essential point—namely, in abolishing a number of minor ecclesiastical Courts. A vast number of Courts of that description, not less, he believed than 340—were scattered over different parts of the country, several of them having a jurisdiction over a large, and some over a small, district. In several instances the jurisdiction extended over only a single parish or two. That being the case, the House would see the expediency of attending to the recommendation of the commissioners, which was, to transfer the jurisdiction of those Courts—the Bishops' Peculiar Courts—to the Diocesan Courts. He knew this change would be attended with some inconvenience, inasmuch as it would be necessary to do certain acts at a distance from the homes of the parties concerned; but that could not be avoided. If, however, the Local Courts' Bill had passed, no such difficulty would have existed. On the recommendation of the Commissioners, no less than nine bills
612
were originally founded. It had, however, been thought better that the whole of those bills should be consolidated into one measure. Now that the Local Courts Bill had failed in its progress through that House, he would not say a single word on the subject of its provisions, but he would briefly slate the objects of the Bill he was then about to submit to their consideration. In the first place, the Bill abolished the Bishops' Peculiar Courts, and made other changes of equal importance. According to the recommendation of the Commissioners, it deprived the Ecclesiastical Courts of all criminal jurisdiction, and declared, that offences of a criminal nature should, in future, be treated as misdemeanors, punishable by indictment. It regulated the powers of sequestration in the manner suggested by the Commissioners. The defects of the ecclesiastical jurisdiction exercised by the heads of the Church over clerks who misconducted themselves had long been complained of. It was only necessary for him, in stating that fact, to allude to one or two cases, which must be fresh in their Lordships' remembrance, which had travelled through the whole of those Courts, and even up to that House. To obviate the recurrence of such an evil, provision was made in the Bill, conformably with the recommendation of the Commissioners. Various most important regulations with respect to the choice of churchwardens were also adopted in the Bill. He had not considered this part of the subject very minutely, and therefore had not completely made up his mind with respect to it; but as the recommendation came from such very high authority, it was worthy of the serious attention of their Lordships. Provision was also made in the Bill for the amendment of the law relating to the dilapidation and waste of Church property. Perhaps, however, the most important provision contained in the Bill was that which amended the law concerning the proof of wills with respect to real as well as personal property. It gave him great satisfaction, although he deeply regretted the loss of the measure to which he had already alluded, that there was no longer any reason for delaying the introduction of the present Bill. The noble and learned Lord concluded by moving, "That the Bill be read a first time."
Bill read a first time.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, he had next to bring forward another Bill, which had been suspended in the hope, that the Legislature would adopt a salutary measure that had been introduced to the other House by a learned friend of his. A year ago, he had expressed a wish, that a concurrent jurisdiction should be given to the Bankruptcy Court in cases of insolvency. It had been supposed, when the Court of Review was first established, that it would be greatly overworked, whereas the fact was, that it was under-worked, and the judges had much time upon their hands. Now, it would be found extremely beneficial if that time was devoted to the disposal of insolvency cases. Complaints had been made, that, during the long vacation, a period of six weeks, unfortunate persons confined for debt were precluded from obtaining their liberty. Though the Commissioners went the circuit three times a-year, their labours were confined to England, and it was desirable that they should proceed to Wales. The present Bill would provide for both these points. So long as there was a chance of the Local Jurisdiction Bill being passed, he did not feel any desire to interfere with the system, because that Bill would effect every object which this Bill had in view. But that measure having been lost, he thought it was necessary to propose the present Bill, which would give concurrent jurisdiction in cases of insolvency to two puisne Judges of the Court of Review. He hoped that this measure would be only a temporary one, because there was a Bill brought into the other House of Parliament by the Solicitor-General, which he hoped would be carried, and which would render this measure unnecessary. As, however, this Bill was at present suspended, he thought it fit to propose this measure.
Bill read a first time.

CHANCERY—COURT OF APPEAL.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, he held in his hand another Bill which he was about to recommend to the adoption of their Lordships. In the course of the last Session of Parliament, on introducing a particular measure upon the subject of Chancery regulations, he detailed the outline of a Bill upon the same subject as that to which he was now about to call the attention of the House—he meant to a Bill for establishing
614
a Court of Appeal in the Court of Chancery for the suitors in Equity, whether in that Court, of the Court of Exchequer. He proposed, that the Lord Chancellor and an Equity Baron should be two of the Judges constituting that Court of Appeal. The present Lord Chief Baron, it was highly desirable should continue in that Court, in order that his undivided attention might be given to the duties which he performed so well. That noble and learned Lord was not now present; but, whether present or absent, he (the Lord Chancellor) should always consider him as having executed the duties of a Judge in that Court to the entire satisfaction of its suitors. The Lord Chancellor and an Equity Baron would form a part of the Court of Appeal; it was proposed to join with them the Master of the Rolls and the Vice Chancellor. These Judges would thus constitute a Court of Appeal, to sit at all convenient times to be appointed; so that, instead of there being only an appeal from one Judge to one Judge, as was now the case, and after an appeal from the decision of the same person in one Court to the same individual in another, there would be, as in common sense ought to be the case, an appeal from the decision of one Judge to three or four Judges. With respect to the appointment of the fifth Judge, which the Bill contemplated, he was to preside in the Court of Chancery, and be the Chief Judge in Equity. By this appointment would be reserved to the Lord Chancellor his political functions, his Ministerial functions, and, above all, his functions as a Judge of Appeal, from the Court of Chancery to the House of Lords; also his functions as a Judge to sit in Privy Council, and also his judicial functions in the Appeal Court of Chancery, as often as he was required to sit in that Appeal Court. It was proposed, moreover, that the Lord Chancellor should still continue his jurisdiction in all cases of lunacy, for various reasons not necessary now to be stated. It was highly expedient that this responsible office should not be burthened with the ordinary jurisdiction which he now possessed, but that it should be transferred to the other Judge of the Court of Chancery, whose appointment was embraced in the Bill. Notwithstanding the removal from the Lord Chancellor of the ordinary jurisdiction, his duties would be ample; his

615
time would be fully occupied with the jurisdictions left to him. He proposed, that the salary of the Lord Chancellor should be 8,000 l. per annum. He had stated last year, that 10,000 l. a-year would be an ample sum; but considering the alteration which had been made in the salaries of the Puisne Judges, considering also the reduction of the salary of the Lord Chief Justice of the King's Bench from 10,000 l. to 8,000 l., he thought 8,000 l. a sufficient sum for the Lord Chancellor. With respect to the Judge to be appointed, he proposed a sum of 7,000 l. a-year. He also proposed another alteration in the salary of the Master of the Rolls, on the death of resignation of his Honour the present Master of the Rolls. It was proposed that the salary of that Judge, on the event named taking place, should be reduced to the same amount as the salary given to the Vice-Chancellor, there being no reason on earth why the Master of the Rolls should receive more for the performance of his duties than the Vice-Chancellor. In the course of the last Session he (the Lord Chancellor) had stated, when the emoluments of the Lord Chancellor were stated to be 14,000 l. a-year, that 10,000 l. per annum, as he had already remarked, was more than sufficient, even when there was no diminution of duties, which the present Bill pointed out; and now that these duties were diminished, he considered the sum of 8,000 l. a-year ample remuneration.
Lord Ellenboroughreminded their Lordships, that the incomes of Barristers were much larger at present than formerly, and that they should therefore be careful how they reduced the salaries of the Judges. He thought, that no measure could be more fatal than one which would deprive the country of the services of the first men in the profession. The loss of such men was not to be estimated in money. He hoped that the Government would give the subject much consideration before they passed such a measure.
The Lord Chancelloradmitted the necessity of consideration, still he thought that a difference was to be drawn between the salary given to a Judge who was removable at pleasure, and a Judge who could not be removed. A Judge who was removable, if he did not perform his duty, might be removed. But it was of consequence that those Judges who were irremovable should have an adequate
616
salary, for, if once appointed, he could not be removed; but it was different with the Keeper of the Great Seal. They ought to observe a medium between under paying and over paying the Judges. Bill read a first time.