Sitting of 13 June 1861

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—2° East India Council, &c.; East India (High Courts of Judicature); East India (Civil Service); Dealers in Old Metals.
3° Excise and Stamps.

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS.

  QUESTION.
  SIR HENRY STRACEYsaid, he rose to ask the President of the Board of Trade, On what day he intends to move for leave

  997
  to introduce his Bill to amend the Merchant Shipping Acts? The reason he put the question was that the right hon. Gentleman had informed him it was his intention to introduce the Bill, if possible, this week, and had authorized him to write to his constituents, with whom he had compromised himself. ["Order, order!"]
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, it was extremely difficult to give a decided answer as to the time when public business would come on. He was very anxious to bring in a Bill, but he could not tell the hon. Baronet on what day it would be introduced, or whether it would be possible to introduce it at all during the present Session. He was not able to command time; but in a day or two he trusted he would be able to give the hon. Baronet a positive answer.

THE MAIL CONTRACTS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, The number and date of the different breaches of contract committed by the Cunard, Peninsular and Oriental, and West India Companies, during the two first years of their service, and the number of penalties imposed; and to ask the Secretary to the Treasury in how many instances such penalties were remitted by the Treasury?
  COLONEL FRENCHsaid, he wished to ask how it had happened that the Papers for which he had moved in reference to that question, and which had been ordered by the House, had not yet been produced?
  MR. PEELsaid, that the papers for which the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel French) had moved were being prepared by the Admiralty; and he (Mr. F. Peel) could not state when they would be ready. In reply to the question of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Galway county (Mr. Gregory), he had to state that, although he had had some difficulty in procuring the information which the hon. Gentleman required, in consequence of the distance of the time to which it referred, he had, he believed, succeeded in ascertaining all the facts which were necessary to furnish an answer to that question. He would first take the Cunard Company. That company had beeen in existence since the year 1840, and during the whole of that time, and not merely during the first two years of their existence, they had never committed any breach of contract; they had incurred
  998
  no penalties, and they had never, that he was aware of, at any moment asked for any indulgence or allowance from the Government; they had, in fact, carried the mails with undeviating regularity during the twenty-one years of their contract. The Peninsular and Oriental Company had been almost equally successful in the regularity with which they had performed the obligations of their contract; and he could only find one instance of the imposition of a penalty upon them, and that was with regard to their branch service between Malta and the Ionian Islands. In the year 1841 or 1842 they failed to provide a vessel for the conveyance of the mails between Malta and those islands, and they were fined £1,000 for that breach of contract, and they were required to pay that sum. With regard to the West India Company he found that that company should have commenced their voyages on the 1st of December, 1841, according to their contract, but in consequence of a delay in the completion of their vessels they were allowed to postpone the opening of the service for a single month, that was to say until the 1st of January, 1842. He could find only one instance of a breach of contract on their part in the departure of their vessels from this country, which was in the month of December, 1842, when one of their vessels was five days behind time in leaving the port of Falmouth. In consequence of that delay they were fined £3,500; and, although they remonstrated very strongly against the imposition of that penalty, the Government insisted on its payment. He would refer to the evidence of Colonel Chappell, who stated with respect to that company before the Committee, in 1849, that—
  "There have been 181 maila despatched from this country since they commenced, which have all gone at the appointed moments with one exception, for which the company were, in my opinion, most unjustly fined £3,500, which they were obliged to pay."
  With regard to the Intercolonial Mail Service, it appeared that it fell into great confusion and irregularity during the first year of their contract. They alleged that the reason of that irregularity was that the scheme of routes was so intricate and so extensive as to be almost impracticable. The Admiralty, however, maintained that the real cause was that the company did not maintain a sufficient number of vessels in the West Indies, and they fined the company £8,000 on account of the defi-

  999
  ciency in the number of their vessels. The objection, however, made by the company to the scheme of routes was afterwards admitted, and that scheme was altered, and the penalty was remitted by the Government. The only other fine they had incurred in the nature of a penalty, as far as he could discover, was one in the year 1842, also in connection with a disarrangement of the intercolonial service of the company. Upon that occasion they were compelled to pay £2,715 for the assistance the Government had rendered them in carrying the mails between the West India Colonies. Their own vessels not being ready upon the appointed day the Government sent a ship of war, or one of the Consuls hired a vessel, and in consequence of that service a sum of £2,715 was abated from the amount to which they were entitled. That was, he believed, a complete statement of the breaches of contract on the part of any of those companies, and of the penalties to which they had been subjected.

INDIAN ARMY—MEDICAL BRANCH.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BLAKEsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, If he has any objection to state what arrangements have been made with regard to the position of the Medical Officers of the late East India Company's Army on its amalgamation with the Queen's Forces; whether it is intended that Medical Officers who received an increase of rank by the Warrant of January, 1860, similar to that granted to Officers of the Queen's Army by the Warrant of October, 1858, shall also receive the same increase of pay in proportion as was then granted to Medical Officers in the Royal Army; and are the Senior Medical Officers of Her Majesty's Indian Service to be promoted to the rank of Principal Inspector General, Inspector General of Hospitals, and Deputy Inspectors General of Hospitals, as heretofore, when vacancies occur; or are those appointments in future to be filled by the Medical Officers of Her Majesty's Royal Army?
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, he was sorry to say he could give no satisfactory answer to the hon. Gentleman. The whole question of the Medical Staff and Medical Service in India was under the consideration of the Indian Government and the Secretary of State for War, and until some decision was come to it was impossible to
  1000
  give the hon. Gentleman the information required.

FISHING AFFRAY ON THE SCOTTISH COAST.—QUESTION.
MR. CAIRDsaid, he wished to ask the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate, Whether he has heard that one Fisherman on the coast of Argyllshire has been killed, and another wounded, by shots fired from Her Majesty's Steamer Jackal, or her boats; and whether he will explain to the House by whose authority this was done?
THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he was not able to answer the last portion of the question of the hon. Member. He had, however, received a pretty full account of the unfortunate occurrence; but as it would necessarily form the subject of a judicial investigation, it would not, perhaps, be proper for him to enter into a full statement of the details. The accounts of the transaction were rather conflicting. On the one hand, there was the evidence of the boat's crew, and there was that of the revenue officers on the other. It appeared from the statement of the latter that they had gone out for the purpose of seeing whether the men were engaged in illegal fishing, and that they found them in the act of trawling. The officers then landed two marines, and those marines went round until they got within the vicinity of the fishing boat; they called to the fishermen, who continued their occupation. They then fired blank cartridge, and afterwards a shot, intended, as he understood, to be wide of the mark. On the other hand, the fishermen did not admit that they were trawling. They said that they were hailed, and that immediately on being hailed they replied that they were coming on shore, when a shot was fired, and one of their number was killed.

EAST INDIA (CIVIL SERVICE) BILL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. ADAMsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether, as he has three most important Bills on the Paper for Second Reading to-night, and as neither this House nor the Public has had sufficient time to consider the probable effects of all these Bills, he will not consent to postpone the Civil Service Bill until a later day?
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, that the question of his hon. Friend behind re-

  1001
  ferred to only one of the Bills. Now, any o alteration to be made in that Bill must be made in Committee. He had an alteration himself to propose in Committee, and he, therefore, hoped there would be no objection to take the second reading of the Bill that night. He did not intend to fix the Committee on the Bill before that day week, which would afford ample time for considering its provisions.

SYRIA—THE GOVERNOR OF THE LEBANON.—QUESTION.
SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, he rose to repeat the question which he had addressed to the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the other night, Whether it is true that it has been decided at Constantinople by the Representatives of the Powers that the Lebanon shall be placed under a Governor who shall be selected from the Maronite sect; and, whether that Governor is not to be under the orders of the Governor General of Syria, but is to communicate directly with the authorities at Constantinople? He also wished to know whether that decision has received the assent of the Representatives of Her Majesty?
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Sir, I have to state that the arrangement which has been agreed to is that there shall be a Christian Governor of the Lebanon; but it is not specified in the agreement whether he is to be a native of the Lebanon or not. The Commissioners had agreed, with the assent of all their number, except the French Commissioner, that the Governor should not be a native; but when the question came to be considered by the Representatives of the various Powers at Constantinople it appeared that they had received different instructions from their respective Governments. It was agreed, however, upon the proposition of the Prussian Minister at Constantinople, that a Christian Governor of the Lebanon should be appointed, but, as I have stated, without any specification whether he was to be a native of the Mountains or not, and in that arrangement Her Majesty's Ambassador concurred. As to the other part of the hon. Baronet's question, I believe the Christian Governor will be under the orders of the Pasha of Sidon; but I cannot give a positive answer on that point because Her Majesty's Ambassador has informed me that various details were to be consigned to a Protocol, and I have not yet received any notice of such a document.

INTERVIEW BETWEEN VICTOR EMMANUEL AND LOUIS NAPOLEON.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CRAUFURDsaid, he had to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a question of considerable importance in reference to a statement which he had seen in an Italian Paper, and which bore in a particular manner on the present state of Italian affairs. He had just seen a statement to the effect that his Majesty the King of Italy had left Turin and repaired to the town of Tulos, near St. Jean de Maurienne, which was within the French frontier, in consequence of an urgent despatch from Paris, and that it was supposed it was for the purpose of meeting his Majesty the Emperor of the French there. He wished to know if the noble Lord had any knowledge of the matter?
  LORD JOHN RUSSELLreplied that he had no knowledge of the circumstance.

EAST INDIA LOAN BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, he thought that trustees ought to be allowed to invest trust money in the stock which would be created by this Bill in the same manner that they were allowed to invest in the existing India stock, and gave notice that he would move a clause to that effect.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, that that House had been called upon from time to time to vote loans for India, which amounted in the aggregate to an enormous sum, and yet they knew very little at any particular moment of the financial condition of that country. It was quite astonishing to see how mistaken the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India had been in the statements he had submitted to the House with reference to the finances of that country. The right hon. Baronet was, no doubt, anxious to state what was the truth, but the facts had completely contradicted his anticipations. On the 6th of February last he told them that, although a loan might be required in the course of the year on account of the Indian railways, none would be necessary for the current service of the Government; and the right hon. Gentleman had, in fact, made what was known as a "prosperity" speech. He (Sir Henry Willoughby) said at the time he thought the right hon. Baronet took too sanguine a view of the financial state of

  1003
  that country, but he was rebuked by the hon. Gentleman, the present Under Secretary for War (Mr. Baring), for his want of confidence in the calculations of the Indian Minister. The fact was, however, that the House was now asked to sanction a loan on account of India to the amount of £4,000,000. That loan would raise the debt of India to more than £100,000,000, upon which an annual interest of £5,000,000 would have to be paid, although the interest on the Indian debt in 1857, only four years ago, was only £2,500,000. On the 3rd of June the right hon. Gentleman said that he anticipated that in the year 1860–1 there would be a reduction of expenditure. A few days after there came a lengthy statement from Mr. Laing which showed that the expenditure of that year, instead of diminishing, would be increased by about a quarter of a million. The financial condition of India seemed to him to be totally unintelligible. Mr. Laing had certainly made a very able statement upon the subject, just as his predecessor, Mr. Wilson, had done a short time previously. They were at present aware, however, that there was not much ground for their trusting to the calculations of the latter distinguished and lamented gentleman. The scheme of Mr. Wilson had since fallen to the ground; and, although Sir Charles Trevelyan had told the truth in a rather awkward way, it was clear that he was entirely right and that Mr. Wilson was entirely wrong. It was now generally admitted that the only remedy for the unfortunate state of the finances of India was to be found in a reduction of military expenditure. They were all very much at sea with respect to the real condition of the evil with which they had to deal. They were intermingling the expenses of the Indian Government with the outlay upon gigantic railway works; while, in his opinion, the two subjects should be kept entirely distinct, or nothing but danger and confusion would ensue. He confessed it appeared to him that Mr. Laing, in his recent calculations, had taken too favourable a view of the finances of India, and he doubted very much whether it would be possible to realize in the coming year that Gentleman's anticipated surplus. We raised the enormous revenue of £41,000,000, and Mr. Laing attempted to show that this would leave a surplus over expenditure; but the hon. Gentleman's own figures showed this to be very doubtful. Mr.
  1004
  Laing proposed to effect a reduction of expenditure by abolishing the navy of India. But the result of such a measure would be to transfer an expenditure of £600,000 or £700,000 from the revenue of India to that of this country. He (Sir Henry Willoughby) believed that there were many items of expenditure which Mr. Laing had overlooked—such, for instance, as the loss on the exchanges, which might be estimated at £500,000 a year. Nothing could be more amusing than to read the affectionate exhortations addressed by the right hon. Gentleman to the Government of India, urging them to reduce their expenditure, and the replies of that Government, humbly suggesting that he should reduce the home charges. But the truth was that the House had no means of controlling the expenditure of India. No doubt, the home charges, especially as regarded the military expenditure, were most extravagant, and in asking for this loan the right hon. Baronet ought to show the necessity for those charges. Was it true that, although the men in the depôts had been reduced by one-half, yet that the officers who were paid out of the Indian revenue had been maintained at their full strength; and had not stores been sent from this country to India which were not required there and had not been asked for? It was the duty of the House to call upon the Government to look strictly into these matters. The debt of India had increased from £59,500,000 in 1857 to £103,000,000, and the only chance for that country was the reduction of the army. Yet those reductions could not be carried out without danger. He understood that 200 regiments of the Native army were about to be reduced. [Sir CHARLES WOOD signified that this statement was not correct.] He believed that 100 battalions were to be reduced instanter. He thought that sudden changes of that kind in India, where affairs were in a delicate, if not critical, state, were much to be deprecated. He doubted the wisdom also of imposing new and dangerous taxes upon the people, and, above all, he was certain that they were acting with great impolicy by adding to the existing dead weight of India, which at this very moment was not less than from £15,000,000 to £16,000,000. It was, therefore, with very great reluctance that he saw this proposition for an Indian loan brought forward, particularly after the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman that the year

  1005
  1860 would see the end of these loans. With respect to the accounts, he could not too strongly condemn the mode which had been adopted, of mixing up railway accounts with the general revenue of the country.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, that unless the Secretary of State for India was assisted by means of a loan he would not be able to fulfil his engagements in this country, and the public service would be, in consequence, greatly damaged. The estimates sent from India were not trustworthy, and the explanations not easy to be understood. First they were told that no less then £6,678,097 would be required to balance the income and expenditure in 1860–1; and now, coming close upon the heels of the former estimates came one from Mr. laing, in which he stated that he actually anticipated a balance of income over expenditure of £239,896 in 1861–2. That excess of income could, however, only be obtained by making a very formidable and dangerous reduction in the Native army. He did not know whether it was resolved to reduce as many regiments as had been stated, but he believed the proposal was to dismiss 64,000 men. Surely the Indian Government would not be guilty of such rashness and impolicy as to dismiss all those men who had been trained to arms at once? The saving, therefore, could only be prospective, for if they proceeded to disband this large number of men at once the result would be to cover the country with bands of brigands. If, in addition to reviewing the Indian expenditure, his right hon. Friend would turn his attention to the expenditure at home, he would find a wide field for curtailment. The troops in the depots far exceeded the number required, and the amount of stores sent out to India was so great as to be actually embarrassing to the authorities there. At the same time he was sensible how inexpedient it would be to embarrass the right hon. Gentleman, and, therefore, though with very great reluctance, he should vote for the loan.
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, that in reference to the remark of the hon. Member (Sir Henry Willoughby) that the Indian Government had embarked in "gigantic railway schemes," he wished to remind the House that every one of the railways waiting for completion had been contracted for by the old Court of Directors, and certainly no contract of the kind of any importance had been entered into since the
  1006
  time of the mutiny; the Government, therefore, were merely carrying out engagements into which they had long entered. If the railways were not completed, the Government would sustain immense loss in paying guaranteed dividends upon the money raised, and, therefore, it was far better for them to advance the money required to complete them with as little delay as possible. Practically, no difference would be made to the money market, for no greater amount would be levied by the Secretary of State than the companies themselves would raise were they in a position to do so. He utterly denied that the statements of accounts were obscure. Having read with great attention the speech of Mr. Laing to the Legislative Council, and the various official returns and accounts submitted to the House, he must say that he had never seen financial statements conveying a clearer perception of the matters to which they referred, the railway accounts being kept wholly separate from the general accounts of the Government of India. It was true that occasional mistakes were found to have been made in the estimates of expenditure; but when such difficulty was experienced in attaining a clear view of the public income and expenditure of this country, as appeared from a Return recently laid on the table of the House, it was not to be wondered at that discrepancies were sometimes observable in the statements of Indian revenue. For himself he did not feel the slightest apprehension for the future of India, either in respect to finance or any other matters, and he believed that the Government of that country were fully prepared to take every measure for the curtailment of the expenditure with judgment and discretion.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, in times past he had joined in pressing on the Government the necessity of embarking in the construction of Indian railways, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Indian Government had some reason to complain that rival schemes should now for the first time be pointed out as desirable or advantageous. For his own part, he did not think the objections well founded. It was suggested the other night that the water communications might be so improved as to render railways unnecessary; but this idea was opposed to the experience of practical men for the last ten or fifteen years, and to the considerations which had repeatedly been urged

  1007
  upon the Government. In connection with the construction of railways in India, they had seen enough to show them that there must be ground for stating that it was not easy to improve the water communication, and that great results in the way of such improvement could not be effected for the small sums which some persons considered to be sufficient for that purpose. His own idea was that the Government could not have adopted a better course than promoting the lines of railway they had sanctioned. It was not enough for the right hon. Gentleman to come and ask for power to raise money to contribute to the railway companies, unless he gave those companies practical support and protection in the prosecution, of their great enterprises, and unless he gave guarantees that he was willing to carry out the engagements of the Government with perfect good faith. For instance, he understood that the Government were now offering land to the companies, in very inconvenient situations, provided they would pay for it; whereas the original understanding was that the Government would grant the land to the companies free of cost, wherever they wished for it. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would see that it was very shortsighted policy on the part of the Government to attempt to gain any small advantage over the railway companies, or to deviate in the smallest degree from any engagements, however onerous, which they had undertaken, with a view of inducing private persons to invest their money in those railways. If he held out the prospect of fresh guarantees, and brought new competitors into the market, great difficulties would be experienced in raising the money necessary for the completion of the present undertakings. As the right hon. Gentleman had sent into the market a number of companies, all with guarantees, and all competing with each other for capital, there was no other course open to him than that of obtaining the loan which he now proposed to raise. It should be remembered that the money thus raised would not be unproductive; it was not analogous to loans raised to make good deficiences of Indian revenue, but would pay interest, which would be derived from the industry which the railways themselves would develope.
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, the first question raised was that of the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield). He (Sir Charles Wood) was the last person to ob-
  1008
  ject to the introduction of such a provision in its proper place as the hon. Member proposed, but he did not think it would be proper that the clause suggested should be introduced into the Bill before the House. In 1859 a Bill was introduced to amend the law of property and to relieve trustees, one of the clauses of which empowered trustees to invest trust-money not only in the Securities in this kingdom, but in certain other Securities, amongst which was included the Stock of the East India Company. A question was raised in the Courts of law, whether that clause enabled trustees to invest money in the loans raised in this country by the Government of India. The decision of a Court of law was, that trust-money could not he so invested in India Stock of that description, it could only be invested in the Stock of the East India Company. Now, anxious as he was to improve the India Stock, he thought that to introduce into this Bill a clause conferring that power would be very unfair; but he should be very glad to see such a power given by any Bill relating to the power of trustees to invest trust property. It was exceedingly inconvenient to mix up with this Loan Bill the general question of the finances of India. He had stated before, and he now repeated it, that he was not at present in a position to bring forward the question relating to the general finances of India. All he could say on that point was that, whether there was a surplus or a deficiency, he was alike under the necessity of asking for this loan. The hon. Baronet the Member for Evesham (Sir Henry Willoughby) said he had given too favourable an account of Indian finance in his speech in the House in February last. To show that he had not done so, he begged to read the following statement from Mr. Laing, with reference to the deficit of 1860–1. Mr. Laing in his recent speech said:—"The position, therefore, we are left in by the Budget of 1860–1 is simply this—a deficit of £6,000,000, less £500,000 increased revenue; remaining deficit, £5,500,000." What was the statement which, in February last, he (Sir Charles Wood) made to the House, and transmitted to India? On the 2nd of February he wrote to the Government of India in these words—"The annual deficit that will have to be dealt with at the close of 1860–1 may be assumed to be £5,500,000." He did not think he had taken too favourable a view of the reve-

  1009
  nue, when it turned out to be identical with that which Mr. Laing stated it to be at the end of the year. At the same time he must admit that there were certain discrepancies in Mr. Laing's statement, which, without an explanation not yet received, it was impossible to reconcile with the accounts on the table of the House, and he should only refer to one of them, Mr. Laing stated that so far from there being a diminution of expenditure in 1860–1, as compared with 1859–60, there was a positive increase of upwards of £200,000 in 1860–1. But there were on the table of the House the official accounts, signed by the Members of Council, and the figures showed that the nett expenditure amounted in 1859–60 to £43,997,000 and in 1860–1 to £38,362,000, showing an actual reduction, in the gross expenditure amounting to £5,635,000. He begged to say that upon the whole he was inclined to place more confidence in the official document, sent with the authority of every Member of the Council of India, than in the statement of the hon. Gentleman made in the reported speech. It appeared that there was a balance of £1,000,000 more in the Indian Exchequer than had been anticipated, and he had a general confidence in the improved state of the Indian finances. What the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) said was perfectly true. But he (Sir Charles Wood) would again repeat whilst with regard to the income and expenditure of India it was easy to keep the railway expenditure distinct, with regard to Ways and Means it was impossible to separate it. In this country we depended on the railway receipts for payment; the railway expenditure in India depended on the public treasuries; so that it was impossible to keep this expenditure apart from the account of Ways and Means, Then he had been asked why he was obliged to have recourse to this fresh loan? It was not for the purpose of keeping a balance between income and expenditure, but because he (Sir Charles Wood) was not in possession of funds at home to make the payments that must be made. He had in the home Treasury £2,000,000 more last year than he had this; and he had sent £1,000,000 to meet the possible demands on account of the famine and of the railroads—so that he had £3,000,000 less at his banker's this year than he had last. With the exception of the demands for railways, he did not expect to have
  1010
  to borrow a single sixpence, in order to defray the expenditure of India.
  Bill considered in Committee; House resumed; Bill reported, without Amendment, to be read 3° To-morrow.

EAST INDIA COUNCIL, &c., BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. VANSITTARTsaid, that this was a most important Bill—so important that it might be regarded as the pivot upon which the future good government of India turned. In considering this question it appeared to him that the first step to be taken was to decide the principle on which it was proposed to govern India:—In other words, was it proposed to govern her from home, by adapting to Indian feelings and habits the system which prevailed in England; or was it proposed to leave the responsibility of taking the initiative in all matters which affected India to her local Governors and Legislative Councils? If the House decided for the former course he maintained that the sooner the present Calcutta Legislative Council was shut up the better, and all central legislative authority should be vested in the Governor General and his Supreme or Executive Council, subject to the control of the Secretary of State for India and his Home Council. If, on the other hand, they decided to adopt the latter course, an Act should be passed to enlarge the numbers and powers of the existing Calcutta Legislative Council, and to extend similar Councils to Madras and Bombay. In the latter case the Supreme or Executive Councils at the different Presidency towns, together with a large proportion of the Home Council, might be advantageously and economically abolished. Now that India had been fully incorporated with the rest of Her Majesty's dominions he could not understand the object of saddling her revenues with the expense caused by the maintenance of three separate and distinct Councils. As far as he could learn from the explanatory statement of the right hon. Baronet in introducing the Bill it appeared that it would have the effect of multiplying these Councils very considerably, of which there were already too many, and of re-establishing the old system of scattering local boards of administration or local councils over the country. Shortly after Lord Ellenborough arrived in India he turned his powerful mind to the

  1011
  consideration of this very question, and, knowing by experience how cumbersome and expensive they were, he substituted responsible Secretaries in their place, and abolished the boards of revenue, salt, opium, stamps, and several others. In 1849, on the annexation of the Punjab, a board of administration was formed for the Government of that province. It consisted of Sir John, then Mr., Lawrence, Sir Robert, then Mr., Montgomery, and Mr. Mansell. Lord Dalhousie, however, very soon found that it would not answer, and he accordingly abolished it, and appointed Sir John Lawrence as Chief Commissioner of that province. Independently of these defects there were several others in this Bill. The local Councils to be assembled at the pleasure of the Governor General in different parts of the country were to possess such limited powers that they would be merely itinerant vestries. It was proposed also to curtail the powers of the Central Legislative Council to such an extent that it would present a more pitiable appearance than it had done since it was first created in 1853 by the right hon. Baronet. He did not, however, quite understand what was to be the nature and constitution of these Councils. He feared, therefore, that this Bill had been hastily and crudely considered. He was the more disposed to think so because, on perusing the correspondence on the subject which the right hon. Baronet had placed on the table, the three separate despatches written by the Governor General, dated the 9th of December, 1859; the 15th of January, 1861; and the 23rd of January, 1861, differed very materially from each other as to the constitution of these Councils. It was, moreover, much to be regretted that the right hon. Baronet had allowed three-fourths of the Session to pass before he introduced this Bill, and Bills Nos. 2 and 3, which also stood for a second reading this evening, so as to render it impossible to send them up to the other branch of the Legislature in sufficient time to be properly discussed this Session. Looking to the breathless haste with which these Indian Bills were being pushed through the House—the great mass of business to be got through during the remaining six weeks of the Session, such as Appropriation of Seats Bill, the Election Law Amendment Bill, the Highways Bill, the Galway Contract, Church Rates, Artistic Copyright, County Surveyors, and several other Bills; and, considering lastly,
  1012
  that the Committee of Supply was almost untouched, he thought it would be more prudent to withdraw these three Indian Bills until next Session. If a Motion were made to that effect he should be prepared to give it his cordial support.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERdesired that the Secretary of State for India should inform the House whether the proceedings of the principal Council at Calcutta were to be made public or not. It had been hitherto in the power of the Governor General to make regulations for the Legislative Council, and such regulations were made by Lord Dalhousie, and the deliberations of the Council were conducted much in the same manner as the deliberations of the House of Commons. By the 19th section of the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman it was provided that the Governor General should have the same power as hitherto, and he would, therefore, be able to make regulations for the new Council. But he was exceedingly anxious to know—he did not want defined in actual terms—what sort of regulations would be made? It appeared from his introductory speech, that the right hon. Baronet seemed to expect the regulations would be very different, and to desire that that should be the case; and he found also, upon reference to the despatches, that Lord Canning disapproved of the manner in which the proceedings of the Council had been hitherto conducted. What he wanted to know was whether the Council were to sit in secret or public session, and whether the reports of their deliberations were to be made from day to day, or at the end of the discussion of any particular measure, or not until the end of the session? The only information they had obtained upon this point was conveyed by the despatch of Lord Canning, dated the 15th of January of this year, in which, after alluding to the disadvantages which were felt in the mode of publicity hitherto allowed, he went on to say—
  "For these reasons I recommend that in the Legislative Councils of the North-Western Provinces of the Punjab, as well as in that of the Governor General, the business should be conducted as in a committee or commission, and not in the form of a set Parliamentary debate, and the proceedings should be reported under the control of the Governor General."
  This insured that the proceedings should be reported; but it did not insure that they should be reported from day to day. That was a matter of principle, involving the important question whether public opi-

  1013
  nion in India was to influence the discussion of laws while they were in process of being made. He was glad it was intended that there should be not only non-official European Members of the Council, but that Natives were also to some extent to be admitted, so as to feel the way to giving them a share in the government; but he felt that if there were no means of informing the public of the proceedings of the Council, so that public opinion might be brought to bear upon them, the advantage of admitting non-official and Native Members would be very much diminished. In addition to this we had a very large number of Europeans in India, and we desired to increase the number; but in this there was the difficulty of inducing free and independent Englishmen to live under a despotic rule, and that difficulty would only be increased if the action of public opinion upon the Council were taken away. There were one or two cases to which he wished to allude, in which the advantages of the publication of the proceedings of the Council, and even of the speeches of the Members from day to day, were felt throughout India. When Mr. Wilson proposed his income tax, the measure, when it was first mentioned, was felt as one of great hardship by the English residents; but upon his explanation of the necessity of the measure, and of the equality with which it was to be levied, the objections subsided, and it was received without any objection or any feeling of dissatisfaction thoughout India. The Times, indeed, remarked upon the wonderful phenomenon of a community which almost liked to be taxed. Mr. Wilson also proposed a tax upon tobacco, which it was thought would not affect the English residents; but, by reason of its being known that the measure was in contemplation, the public press took up the matter, it was carefully examined into, and it was found out what a disastrous effect it would have throughout the country; and Mr. Wilson, seeing how much more important a matter it was than he had at first supposed, and seeing how great its effect would be upon the Natives, reduced the tax from about 3s. a pound to 6d., and afterwards abandoned it altogether. The publication of the proceedings in this case probably prevented a passive resistance to the tax throughout India. Another reason why he could not help thinking that it would be absolutely necessary to take care that the proceedings should be published from day to day was
  1014
  that it was permitted to the Governors of the different Presidencies to make regulations for their own Councils, subject to the sanction of the Governor General, and he had no doubt the Governor General intended that the proceedings of the local Councils should be conducted as at present. He could not help thinking that if they had the local Councils confined by the arrangements of this Bill to a very subordinate position to the General Council, while they had the strength and prestige which would be given by having their deliberations placed before the public, there would be a clashing of power which would make the whole machine very difficult; to work. He was very sorry that the local Councils were to be debarred from entertaining questions with regard to the land tax. [Sir CHARLES WOOD: That is a misprint.] He was glad to hear that it was so. We were all looking to India for the supply of cotton, of which we were deprived by what was going on in America, and he believed that that which, as much as the want of railway communication, operated almost as a preventive to the growth and supply of cotton, was the exceedingly onerous and oppressive nature of the land tax.
  SIR CHARLES WOODwas understood to explain the precise nature of the misprint to which the hon. Gentleman had referred; but his remarks were inaudible in the gallery.
  MR. LAYARDsaid, he did not think any assembly had ever been called upon to discuss three measures of such enormous importance as the three relating to India which they were now to discuss at so late a period of the Session. They were measures not only of great importance in themselves, but they involved principles which might hereafter affect our rule in India to an extent which few there present would imagine. He did not rise with any desire of opposing the Bills; on the contrary, he willingly admitted that the Secretary of State for India had shown a desire to deal in a large and fair way with this exceedingly difficult question of the Government of India, and had made changes which deserved the approbation, of all who took any interest in Indian affairs. He (Mr. Layard) viewed the Bill before the House with much favour, although he was not perhaps prepared to go the whole length of supporting all its provisions. In two respects it would improve the state of things in India. In the first

  1015
  place, it would make the Government by Councils more effective than it had been; and secondly, it would give an opening for the employment of Natives in a position in which he much wished to see them employed. He thought no one could doubt that the Legislative Council established some years ago had been a failure. That Council was neither a consultative Council, nor a representative Council nor a Legislative Council. The Governor General did not consult that assembly, or if he did consult it, and received advice, he did not consider himself bound to act upon it. Very recently there had been an instance of that. When a Motion for papers was made in the Legislative Council, and carried by a majority, the decision of that majority was treated, he might say, with contempt. No notice whatever was taken of it. The Council was not simply a Legislative Council because it had debates somewhat after the fashion of that House, and had orders and regulations not unlike those of the House of Commons. It was not a representative assembly because it represented nobody except a few officials—it did not represent the Natives, nor that portion of independent Englishmen established in India who were engaged in various matters connected with commerce and agriculture. With regard to knowledge of the wants of the country the Council was also deficient. It was true the two Presidencies of Madras and Bombay had representatives there; but there was only one for each of the Presidencies, and there was an overwhelming majority against them; and not only that, but those Members could not represent the views of the Presidency which sent them. Recently, in the case of the income tax, the representative of Madras was prevented from making those representations in Council which Sir Charles Trevelyan charged him with, and the reason why Sir Charles Trevelyan took the course he did was because it was impossible that the objections which he took in the most forcible manner to the scheme could be urged in the Legislative Council. Now, he was of opinion that the introduction of such Councils as were proposed by the Bill would have a very great effect in India. First of all, it would enable local Councils to deal with matters with which they were locally acquainted. Every Gentleman knew that the population of India was made up of many different races with the greatest variety of
  1016
  creeds, and with different manners and customs; so that the Bengal civil servant, who might know Bengal, might be perfectly ignorant of every other part, and what was good legislation for Bengal might be very bad for the other Presidencies. Could any one doubt that if the income tax had been discussed in the local Councils of the several Presidencies it would have passed? Certainly not. In Madras everything that Sir Charles Trevelyan prophecied had come to pass. There was no one acquainted with India but thought the imposition of the income tax was a great mistake, and that sooner or later it would have to be abrogated. There was another thing in which he thought the Bill would prove advantageous, and that was that it would give the two Presidencies, and ultimately the North-West Provinces and the Punjab, an interest in self-government. And, thirdly, he considered the institution of Legislative Councils as a great step to the division of that great country into distinct governments. He did not agree with his hon. Friend the Member for Manchester in thinking that the time for that had come—but it might yet come. Besides, those Councils would relieve the Governor General from much of those business details which he had now to go through, and which rendered it almost impossible for him to get through the public business entrusted to his charge. As for the representation of the Natives, he did not think that the Bill went far enough, and he should, therefore, be prepared to take the sense of the House when in Committee on an Amendment that one half of the "additional Members" should be Natives. He thought it of the utmost importance that Natives should be admitted to these Councils. Hitherto the Natives had no representation whatever, either in India or even in this country—there was scarcely a Member of that House who raised his voice in their name, while the independent Englishmen established in India, of whom the House had heard a great deal, and who were said not to be represented, made noise enough, had the whole press in their favour, and were enabled by their money and influence to command attention to their claims. What he wanted to see was the Natives represented in fair proportion to the independent English settlers in India. It was said that the Natives would not speak in the Councils at all, but would always defer to the opi-

  1017
  nions of European members. He was inclined to doubt this; but at least, if they were admitted now, in the next generation they might be expected to say a few words, and in the third they would, perhaps, speak as much as Europeans. They could not be expected at once to take part in business which had been the heirloom of the Anglo-Saxon race; but they might be educated to take part, and he thought they would feel proud to take part, in the proceedings of these Councils. He agreed with Lord Canning that most important and valuable advice might be obtained from the Natives of India, and he ventured to say that during the short journey he had made in India the most important and most interesting information he obtained was from Natives. He found that they took the broadest views of Indian affairs—not the European view, but the Native view—which it was of the greatest importance that the Government of India should understand. He was sorry to see the tendency in England to treat India as a colony, like Australia, and not as a dependency. There was the greatest difference between the two. India was a dependency, but Australia and Canada were colonies. In the latter the Government might dispose of the lands, and plant settlers; bat they could not do so in India. In India they had a country thickly populated, every inch of soil belonged to some one, and an ancient civilization, not perhaps of a very high kind, but still a civilization, and the remains of a people who had done great things. Nobody who had been in India but must have been struck by the magnitude of the works which had been executed there, and which showed that the resources of India were at one time developed to an extent to which they were not devolped at the present day. It was all very well for gentlemen of Manchester to say that the Natives were lazy, and that Englishmen must be sent there to make them work. They could not make a lazy people work. But he denied that the Natives were lazy. Let them look at the troops, and he would venture to say that no troops ever exceeded them in what they had gone through. He had heard that they would march even thirty-five or fourty miles a day without a halt, and they had done so during the late mutiny. But the question was not the idleness of the Natives, but simply a question of return for their labour. In the indigo dis-
  1018
  tricts the planters had endeavoured to make it appear that the ryots had resisted the cultivation of indigo, and were opposed to the introduction of English capital; but he believed there never was a statement more opposed to the truth. Let them be paid and a return for their labour given them, and they would cultivate indigo, cotton, or anything else. But in the petitions from Manchester the Natives were altogether ignored, as if those creatures did not exist at all. He was not opposed to the introduction of English capital; on the contrary, he thought it would be the best means of binding the two countries together. All that might be effected by wise and judicious legislation, and if the Legislative Councils performed their duty, and if the Native element were properly represented in them, there would be a much safer and sounder state of affairs in India. As to publicity there was nothing about it in the Bill. He thought it right that there should be publicity, but he agreed with the Governor General that in that case it would be necessary that the people should not be misled as to what was passing in the Councils. The people of India had prejudices of their own, and those prejudices ought to be respected. A mere mistake, a mere misunderstanding led, perhaps, to that dreadful mutiny which ended in the destruction of so many of our fellow creatures. Lord Canning stated that authorized reports might go forth, and he (Mr. Layard) thought that if there was to be publicity there should be a competent person to see that proper reports were published. The press was now almost as influential an organ in India as it was in England; many papers were circulated throughout India of which they knew nothing; but all those papers would report what passed in the Legislative Councils, and it would not be easy to say the enormous amount of mischief that might be done by any misstatement of the proceedings. He thought the powers of the Legislative Councils too much restricted, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider in Committee whether more latitude might not be given to them. Questions regarding the finance of India, its revenue, its debt, might with advantage be discussed by those Councils. He thanked the right hon. Gentleman for what he proposed to do. He believed he was pursuing the proper policy for the Government of India; and he believed that that policy, if consistently

  1019
  carried out, would tend to reconcile India to this country.
  SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, that so far as he had an opportunity of considering the provisions of this Bill, he was disposed to regard it as a step in the right direction. He thought the right hon. Gentleman, in emancipating the Councils of Madras and Bombay from that state of thraldom in which they were placed by the Legislative Act of 1833, had done good service to India. But he considered that if the Government of that country was to be carried on with vigour the power must be concentrated in a Governor General, and to retain that power he must necessarily maintain a large control, especially in finance matters, over the other Presidencies. He thought the introduction of a non-official element into the Legislative Council of Calcutta was a desirable one. And if they admitted Englishmen who were unconnected with the Government into that Council, they ought on principles of justice to allow the Natives to have seats there also for the protection of their interests. But he could not concur with the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Layard) in his desire to see so large a portion of the Government consist of Natives, because he (Sir Edward Colebooke) thought it would be absurd to give them an equal share; the best security they could have for the Government of that country was to give a large and preponderating share in the Council to those who were connected with the Executive Government of the country. He entertained very great misgivings with regard to those parts of the Bill which concerned other provinces under the Government of Calcutta. He Could not see why the legislative Council of Calcutta should not make laws for the province of Bengal, or What possible advantage could arise from having one Legislative Council sitting in Calcutta to legislate generally for India, and another Legislative Council sitting in the same Presidency, of which Calcutta was the chief town, to legislate for Bengal. With regard to the North-West Provinces of India, he did not think the time had arrived when they ought to venture upon introducing a Legislative Council into that part of the country. If, however, that experiment were to be tried at all, it was one that ought to be carried out by an Act of the Imperial Legislature.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he saw no reason
  1020
  for supposing that the Natives would be mere ciphers if admitted to the Council. They held public meetings and made very intelligent speeches, and took much interest in public affairs, and it was plain from their petitions to the House that they did not overlook their own rights. He was surprised to find that there was no mention of Natives in the Bill, and if the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Layard) had not given notice of an Amendment for their introduction into the Councils, he (Colonel Sykes) would himself have done so. He thought that too many restrictions were placed on the operation of the Council; but on the whole he believed that the tendency of the Bill would be to do good. It was the restoration of the traditional system of the down-trodden East India Company, whose local Councils at the different presidencies before the Legislative Council of India passed rules and regulations for local purposes, but which for the future would be called acts instead of rules and regulations.
  MR. BUXTONhoped the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India would inform the House whether it was intended that the proceedings of the Councils would be published from day to day or not? Experience had shown the immense value to India of having the mind of the people of that country brought to bear upon legislation while the process was going on, instead of at a subsequent time when it had become the law of the land. He thought a little too much had been made of certain remarks made elsewhere upon the restrictions to which Members of the Council would be subjected in regard to finance matters; but it must be remembered that in this country they were under still greater restrictions. He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India on having at last proposed the introduction of the Native element into the Legislative Councils. Those who had their attention turned to what was passing in India could not have failed to perceive how very intelligent the Native population was becoming, the interest taken by them in the affairs of their country, and he had heard Sir John Lawrence himself say that he and his brother had derived most important assistance from many of the Natives. He thought the policy of the right hon. Gentleman inaugurated a new era in the Government of India. That policy went on the basis of not treating the Natives as a conquered race, but as co-

  1021
  operators in the Government of that great Empire.
  MR. KINNAIRDcongratulated the right hon. Gentleman on the favourable manner with which the proposed changes had been received by the House, though the time allowed for their consideration had been very short. He felt convinced, however, that the right hon. Gentleman had not attempted to force the measure on unduly, but that he had seized the first opportunity of proposing it. He trusted that the Bill would not be hurried through Committee. The provision that the seat in the Council should be held for one year only was; he thought, inexpedient, also that the initiative power given to the Councils was a power they ought not to have. He would, however, reserve his objections to certain details of the measure for the Committee; and would merely say now that he thought the measure was one for which the right hon. Gentleman deserved the thanks of the country.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, this Bill reminded him of a man who made a machine with so many complicated wheels and cranks in it, that when he wanted to put it in motion it Would not move at all. He (Mr. Ayrton) was one of those who held that, as long as we intended to keep India, the power of governing must remain, as it had hitherto been, solely and exclusively in the hands of British subjects going out from this country. He believed it not to be possible to keep India if we shared the powers of Government with the Natives. At the same time, however, that we retained all the power in our own hands, we were bound to exercise it with wisdom, with moderation, and with forbearance. Through all time all the nations of Asia had been subject to despotic power; but that power had been exercised with an intelligence and forbearance to which the English Governors of India had been strangers. However despotic the Native Princes of India might have been, they made no laws without consulting in their durbars such of their subjects as could give expression to the general feeling of the community. No such precautions had been adopted by the Governors-General of India in the presumptuous ignorance and arrogance with which, they had exercised their authority. It was this disregard of the feelings of the people which led to the mutiny. Nothing could have been more scandalous than the annexation of Oude and the seizure of Nagpore, and nothing
  1022
  could have been more calamitous than the passing of laws by the Legislative Council which were contrary to the religious feeling of the people. The question now wag whether the power of governing India should be shared with the Natives? He believed that that was an impracticably project. We must maintain our rule All that was required was that we should give guarantees that our power should be exercised with due regard to the feelings of the people. The only guarantee required was that the British authority should not make laws without consulting the people of the country. That could not be done by taking two Natives from a commercial town and making them members of the Legislative Council. The constitution provided by this Bill was better adapted to the government of a joint stock company than of a great empire like India, which could not be governed by Councils "consisting of not less than six or more than twelve Members." He could understand a proposition that the Governor of a province should send for a certain number of influential Native chiefs who might be supposed to represent their people, and that, upon commercial questions, he should invite the principal Native merchants to give their opinions; but, having ascertained their views, the responsibility of carrying them out clearly rested on the British authorities in India; and to set up an irresponsible Council of six, elected by nobody and speaking merely their own opinions, who had undertaken no duties except to play at legislation, was merely shifting one of the most important duties belonging to the office of Governor, which ought to be discharged by him under the controlling authority of the Home Government. Passing from the local to the general Councils, he believed the right hon. Gentleman had embarrassed himself by this double system of legislation. Instead of having one legislative body at Bombay and another at Calcutta, the boundaries of whose authority it would be impossible accurately to define, a much wiser course would have been to give complete power of legislation to the local Councils, under the sanction and ratification of the Governor General, by which means complete uniformity would have been attained. He farther thought it unnecessary that the Governor General should have a legislative Council, but the local Councils he regarded as of the highest political importance. We were about to create in the most gra-

  1023
  tuitous manner a signal danger to our rule by familiarizing the whole of the Native population with the idea that there was but a single Government in the country. We had obtained our dominion in India owing to the fact that it was composed, not of a single race capable of harmonious action, but of the different races having no feelings or sympathies in common. We had conquered India and built up our empire in detail; we had succeeded whether at Bombay, at Calcutta, or at Madras, because we were always acting with an intelligent mind against a divided people, or some subordinate Government which had separated itself from the original empire of India. Why should we not continue to avail ourselves of the same circumstances to maintain our rule in India? Why were we to teach the Natives what they had failed in discovering for themselves—that they would one day be a great nation? How could we hope that in time to come 40,000 or 50,000 Englishmen would maintain their rule over an united population of 200,000,000? Discontent, if it should break out in one province under a separate system of Government, would be speedily quelled by the assistance which could be rendered from other parts of India. But in the eyes of those intrusted with the conduct of Indian affairs the importance of maintaining separate Governments seemed altogether secondary to the details of the machinery by which that Government was to be carried out. They had given themselves up to the political pedantry of administration, forgetting those great principles of policy by which empires were raised and dynasties built up, and the neglect of which led with equal certainty to ruin and destruction. The time had come to use the language of warning, and he implored the right hon. Gentleman to strike out of his Bill many of its more complicated parts, so as to render it more consonant with the simplicity of Asiatic ideas. The object of the Bill ought to be simply to put an end to the Council which had done so much mischief, and to leave to the Executive Government authority to take such measures as it might deem necessary. Attempts at precise legislation upon minute details could, only produce confusion, and would surely be injurious in its results.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEtrusted that what had fallen from the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Kinnaird) on this Bill
  1024
  would not be accepted as the feeling of the House. At this period of the Session they found four Bills brought forward in one night, each of which ought to be the subject of considerable debate and deliberation. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for India might not have had time to proceed with them in the early part of the Session, but they ought to have been in the possession of the House, and the feelings of the Council for India in respect to these Bills ought, likewise, to have been made known. He believed it would have been sound policy on the part of the Government to regulate the finances of India so as to make the income balance the expenditure, before establishing a body which, if it should prove anything more than a debating society, would lead to a great deal of additional expense. A few years ago the expenditure for Ceylon was £70,000 or £80,000 a year; but the effect of a Legislative Council had been to raise that expenditure to £350,000 a year, though the island was not larger than some of the collectorates of India. He feared that a similar result would follow from this measure. He should have recommended Her Majesty's Government, instead of bringing in four Bills this year, to bring in a measure which would have reduced our army in India in a gradual and systematic manner, which would have provided a substitute for our Indian navy—which he believed was to be entirely done away with—and which would have made our Indian income something like balance our expenditure in that country. How the duties hitherto performed by the Indian navy were in future to be discharged was a matter which the House knew nothing about; but what appeared to be probable was that this country would be called on for men and ships to do duty along a seaboard of 2,500 or 3,000 miles.
  MR. DANBY SEYMOURsaid, it was probably not from any want of will that the right hon. Gentleman had abstained from offering a measure for equalizing the revenue and expenditure, but simply from the impossibility of devising a measure that would have any such effect. Countries whose finances were prosperous were countries well governed, and, therefore, he thought that the best course which the Government could take with a view of equalizing the revenue and the expenditure in India was to bring in Bills such as these. All the measures introduced by the right hon. Gentleman were conducive to the good

  1025
  Government of India, and if they were successful would bring about that fiscal improvement all were desirous to see. By giving the people a voice in their own affairs, by improving the administration of justice, and by admitting the Natives to a share in the Government of their country, we should lay the foundation for a more prosperous state of finance than had yet been seen in India. The hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets thought that the Bill did not give the local Councils power enough. He would have legislation carried on by them subject only to the veto of the Governor General. But no single man could undertake to consider and give a veto on all the Bills passed by those Councils. The Governor General must have some one to assist him in that duty; and if so, was it not better that he should have the assistance which the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman proposed to give him, and surely it was better that this Council should be composed, not of irresponsible persons, but of persons whose conduct was open to public observation r There were certain measures which must be undertaken by the local Councils, and others which it would be very inconvenient to have treated in a different manner in different places. The hon. and learned Member would not wish to see conflicting Customs' regulations or different coinage in different parts of India. At the same time there were local matters which could be treated with advantage by local Councils. If we could have but one country, so much the better; and in Europe we were endeavouring to get rid of geographical differences. He desired to rule India, not by keeping the Natives in ignorance, which in these days of the free press and of public inquiry was impossible—but by elevating them and making them feel that it was their interest that our rule should continue. Our security in India was not that the Natives could not turn us out, but that they would not—no people on the face of the earth would drive out a good Government. He believed that the people cared very little for the Government that was over them if it only governed them well. He would encourage in the Natives the wish for our civilization, and he had long advocated their admission to posts higher than those which they had hitherto held; but he would not give them too great a voice at first. He would be for a more gradual proceeding. He approved the small re-
  1026
  presentation, inadequate though it was, which was to be conferred upon the people of India. He rejoiced to see that non-official Europeans were also to form part of the Council. He should be glad to see the independent European population of India greatly increase, and it was no small benefit which the railways conferred upon the country that they really did lead to the extension of the class in question. He should give the main features of the Bill his cordial support.
  SIR CHARLES WOODexpressed his gratification at the manner in which these Bills had been received from all sides of the House; and the only duty he had then to discharge was to answer the few questions which had been put to him. His hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. Forster) had asked him to what extent publicity of the debates of the Legislative Council was to be allowed. Now, that was one of those details which he (Sir Charles Wood) thought had better be left to the discretion of the Governor General. He agreed in the opinion of Lord Canning that publicity ought to be the general rule; but that mischief might arise from precipitate and inaccurate publicity. His hon. Friend the Member for Southwark (Mr. Layard) had said that he had himself derived the greatest advantage from his communications with the Natives. Upon that point Lord Canning was entirely of the same opinion as his hon. Friend; and it was on that very account that powers were taken in the Bill for the purpose of enabling the Governor General to avail himself of the services of Natives in reference to the various questions which he might have to consider. The limitation of the time for which a seat was to be held was to enable the Governor General to obtain the assistance of Native chiefs, who could hardly be expected to attend for two, much less for three years. It had been said in the course of that discussion that their great object ought to be to obliterate the distinctions between the conquerors and the conquered in India. Now, that was precisely the policy which he (Sir Charles Wood) wished to carry into effect. Those Bills distinctly provided that the Natives should be employed in the Legislative Councils as well as in the highest judicial courts, and in the most important executive offices. The same spirit ran through the whole of them—the spirit which animated that policy which Lord Canning had

  1027
  been most successfully carrying out, and which, he believed, with his hon. Friend, would afford the best security for the permanence of our rule, for it would make the highest class of Natives, as well as those of low degree, feel that their own good was bound up in the continuance of our sway. He believed that was the best mode of consolidating and perpetuating our dominion in that country. He might observe, however, that he had not thought it at all desirable to name the Natives expressly in the measure. He held the perfect equality before the law of all Her Majesty's subjects, without distinction of race, birth, or religion, and he would not do anything which could lead to the supposition that he doubted for a moment the existence of that principle. He had never admitted that there was any distinction between any of the subjects of the Queen, whatever might be their differences of birth, or race, or religion. That was the spirit of the Proclamation of Her Majesty on the occasion of Her assuming the direct government of India; and that was the principle which would continue to actuate him in all his administrative measures.
  Bill read 2° and committed for Thursday next.

EAST INDIA (HIGH COURTS OF JUDICATURE) BILL.—SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.
SIR CHARLES WOODmoved the second reading of the Bill.
MR. HADFIELDasked, what inducements were intended to be held out to barristers and other members of the legal profession, English or Native, to practise in these courts?
MR. VINCENT SCULLYconcurred in thinking that three more important Bills than those now before the House were never introduced, and yet nobody appeared to take any interest in these debates except those who profited by the plunder of India. He knew his opinion was unpopular, but it was not necessarily the less true. If we wished to retain our power there we must not admit the Natives to the Government. Our going to India at all was a mistake and an injustice; we were in India contrary to the law of nature, which was inimical to the spread of our race in that country; though he did not say that, having possession of that empire, we should now surrender it; but it behoved us to be careful to whom we intrusted the
1028
reins there. Our rule in India was jealously watched by one of the greatest States in Europe. The Emperor of the French was steadily preparing his advances upon us; he had possession of Suez, the neck, as it was called, of British power in the East, and the noble Lord at the head of the Government, knowing the danger that threatened, steadfastly resisted the cutting of a canal through that isthmus. Napoleon III. had also possession of the best bay on that coast; he was master of a great portion of Africa; he now held Syria, and he had also an armed force in Cochin China. These were alarming facts, and ought to be borne in mind in legislating for India. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) might spare himself his alarm as to the permissive power to admit Natives into the Indian Cabinet. That was a power no more likely to be exercised than the power under the Act of 1829 to admit Roman Catholics into the English Cabinet, which had never since been acted upon. In The Times newspaper the right hon. Baronet was represented to have said that the Bill had been submitted to the Judges of the Supreme Courts of Bengal, Madras, and Bombay, and was highly approved by them. He was also reported to have said that the Judges of the Mofussil, who were to be made co-ordinate with those of the Supreme Courts, had not the slightest legal training.
MR. SPEAKERsaid, the hon. Member was out of order.
MR. VINCENT SCULLYsaid, he was only quoting remarks which had been imputed to the right hon. Baronet by The Times.
MR. SPEAKERsaid, that was just the irregularity to which he had called the hon. Member's attention.
MR. VINCENT SCULLYsaid, he had not stated that the right hon. Baronet had used those words, because the right hon. Baronet had assured him that he had never done so.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order.
MR. VINCENT SCULLYonly referred to this matter as a very good proof of the utility of his intended Motion on the expediency of having authorized reports of their debates. It appeared from a letter entitled Observations and Suggestions on the proposed amalgamation of the courts, written by the Chief Justice of Bombay, Sir Matthew Sausse, one of the most eminent Judges in India, that "the adminis-

1029
tration of justice in the Mofussil was the most unpopular of British institutions in India"—that "the administration of justice in the Presidency towns was very popular, notwithstanding the expense of litigation in the Supreme Courts." The reason for this difference was that "the Judges in the latter were trained in the principles of law and evidence and in their practical application," while in the Mofussil or "country courts, owing to the deficiency of legal education, the Judges had no fixed principles of law and evidence to guide them, and decisions varied with the person or the feelings of the Judge." The letter said that the remedy proposed was "to unite the popular with the unpopular and the professionally inefficient with the efficient elements into one court," and the writer added his opinion that "the hopes and good intentions of the framers of this measure would be grievously disappointed." What would be thought if it were proposed to take a perfectly untrained gentleman from the Court of Quarter Sessions in this country and put him to sit beside the Judges of the land to decide upon the questions submitted to the superior courts? The main proposition of this Bill was to mix up the learned with unlearned gentlemen, for what object he could not understand, except to admit some of the Native element, with the expectation that the civil servants who were Judges of the Sudder Court would be able to give some information to the Judges of the Supreme Court. The principle of the Bill might be right, and he should not vote against the second reading, but he hoped that before the Bill reached another stage they would receive some information on which they could intelligently act.
SIR HARRY VERNEYprotested against the statement of the hon. Member (Mr. Scully) that none took an interest in Indian questions but those who had profited by India or expected to profit by it. There were many Gentlemen in that House who honestly endeavoured to legislate for the benefit of India, though they never had any connection personally with it, or had derived any profit from it. He regretted that the House had not been furnished with all the information they ought to possess on this subject; they ought to have had before them the opinion of the Council of India. He had voted against the Members of the Indian Council being excluded from Parliament, as they could
1030
have given much information on Indian subjects; they were the men who knew more about India than any other class; and yet the House was debarred from an acquaintance with their opinions on this most important question. He hoped the House would insist on the production of the opinions of the Council. He protested against any information being concealed from them on such a subject.
MR. DUNLOPwas understood to support the Bill.
MR. TORRENSsaid, there were some parts of the Bill which could, he thought, be advantageously amended. For instance the covenanted servants of ten years' standing were put upon a par with barristers of five years' standing. The hon. Member (Mr. Scully) had spoken of the learned and the unlearned sitting together in the same court, the learned being barristers of five years' standing, and the unlearned, members of the Covenanted Civil Service of not less than ten years' standing, who had served as Zillah Judges. But he should be inclined to regard the latter experienced persons as the learned, and the inexperienced barrister as the unlearned member of the Court. The standing of the Judges of the proposed Court well deserved the attention of the right hon. Gentleman.
It was hardly fair or considerate to the Covenanted Civil Service to legislate for the possible association of a barrister of five years standing, on the same bench with the covenanted civil servant of twenty-two or twenty-three years standing, which is, he (Mr. Torrens) believed, the shortest period of service at which a covenanted servant has ever attained the honour of a seat on the bench of the existing Sudder Court in Bengal.
COLONEL SYKESheld it to be impolitic to put barristers of five years' standing, who might be about thirty years of age, on the same bench with covenanted servants who might have had from twenty to thirty years' experience. A population of not less than 150,000,000 required the administration of justice according to the Mahommedan and Hindoo codes, and by Judges who understood their languages—qualifications not likely to be possessed by barristers of five years' standing. Hitherto the Mofussil courts had been presided over by Native Judges and had given the greatest satisfaction; but it seemed they were to be superseded by new local courts, presided over by an European barrister, at an expense to the Indian Government of five

1031
to ten times the cost of Native Judges. People spoke of these proposed small cause courts as being new to India; but the fact was they existed in India long before the county courts were known in England, and they had worked so satisfactorily, that the Native Judges had decided on an average, from ninety-seven to ninety-eight cases in every hundred civil suits, with comparatively few appeals from their decision.
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, in reply to the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield), that who should practice before the Courts in India was settled by the Courts themselves. The Sudder Court decided who should practise before it, and under what regulations; so did the Supreme Court; and in like manner the High Court would decide for itself who should practise before it, whether barristers, advocates, or solicitors. In reply to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Scully) what he (Sir Charles Wood) had said was this—that a draft of a Bill had been sent out to the Judges of the Supreme Court of Bengal. Their suggestions had been received and considered, and the greater number of them had been adopted. With respect to the Judges at Madras, the expression of their opinion was in favour of amalgamation. He certainly had received some suggestions from one of the Judges of the Supreme Court at Bombay in a letter, which, no doubt, had been correctly cited by the hon. Member, but which not being a public document he (Sir Charles Wood) did not feel justified in laying it upon the table of the House. The hon. Gentleman then said that the Bill had been introduced without due information. But in the Report of the Committee of 1851–2, and the labours of the Law Commission, which reported the same year, abundant materials would be found. The hon. Baronet (Sir Harry Verney) had charged him (Sir Charles Wood) with acting in this matter without taking the opinion of the Indian Council. He thought the hon. Baronet ought to have ascertained whether the fact was so or not before he made this charge. The truth was that the matter had been repeatedly discussed in the Council; many of the suggestions thrown out had been adopted; but no recorded statement of opinion had been made either for or against the measure, as all were perfectly agreed as to what its main provisions should be. With regard to the objection taken by the hon. Member opposite
1032
(Mr. Torrens), he had only to say that in fixing a five years' standing at the English Bar and ten years' standing for a civil servant as a qualification for a Judge, he had merely repeated the existing qualification for Supreme Court and for the Sudder Courts according to the existing law. The hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeen (Colonel Sykes) had recommended him to bring in another additional Bill; but he (Sir Charles Wood) had been already blamed for introducing so many Indian measures so late in the Session, and he scarcely thought the House would approve of another.
Bill read 2°, and committed for Thursday next.

EAST INDIA (CIVIL SERVICE) BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  MR. VANSITTARTsaid, that although it appeared that the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn (Lord Stanley) had made common cause with the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for India in reference to the passing of this Bill, which sapped and would ultimately destroy a service in which some of the best years of his life had been passed, he hoped the House would permit him to offer a few observations. The right hon. Baronet, in introducing his Bill, observed that its objects were to legalize certain appointments which for fifty years and more had been made in India, and to provide that appointments might be made in certain cases, notwithstanding the provisions of the existing law. With regard to the first of these allegations, it seemed to him that the legality of the appointments referred to had been fully recognized by successive Acts of Parliament passed in 1813, 1833, 1853, and 1858. It was rather remarkable that, though the technical illegality of the appointments had long been known, it was never deemed necessary to legalize them by a special Act of Parliament until it was thought expedient to use such an Act as a sort of shoeing-horn to draw on a clause in order to injure the Covenanted Civil Service. As regarded the necessity of throwing open that service, that had already been done by s. 32, 21 & 22 Vict. c. 106. By that Act, this exclusive Service vice, as it was the fashion to call it, had been thrown open to free and unreserved

  1033
  competition. So open was it in this respect that it was competent for any young man to present himself at the India House in January or July of any year, and, provided he were of the prescribed age, he could claim to be examined. In consesequence of that Act parents had been put to great expense in the education of their sons for that Service; because such was the severity of the examination that it not only exceeded that for any office or department of the Civil Service of this country, but instances had occurred and were occurring of the health of a young man being so seriously impaired by the cramming to which he had been subjected preparatory to his going before the Examination Commissioners that after a short sojourn in India be had been ordered home on medical certificate and compelled subsequently to relinquish the Service. Now, the system which prevailed in England was the very reverse of that. All nominations merely for permission to compete for the Civil Service appointments rested entirely with the Government of the day, and it would be regarded as a breach of Parliamentary decorum were a Member sitting on the Opposition side of the House to submit an application in behalf of a young man, however high his attainments might be, for the purpose of his being permitted to compete along with other candidates. In England, therefore, a parent was forced to submit to the humiliating necessity of interceding with an avowed supporter of the Government of the day for leave for his son to be examined to prove his fitness to enter the public service of his native land. This Bill actually sought for powers to do away with that test of merit, and to substitute in its place Parliamentary influence, nepotism, and jobbing of the very worst description, breaking faith at the same time with those who had gone out to India under the competitive system. Among other plausible reasons for this proceeding it was said that it was impossible to procure a sufficient number of civilians to fill the appointments consequent upon increase and additions made to our Indian territories. It was, no doubt, true that the list of candidates diminished every year, and that fact had been confirmed by the Sixth Report of the Civil Service Commissioners, which had been laid on the table within the last few days. But what was the reason? Why, the high standard of the examinations and the abstraction of the great prizes from that pro-
  1034
  fession. Reduce that standard and preserve the prizes and they would get any number of young men. The standard might be advantageously reduced without impairing the competitive principle, and without substituting for that principle the wholesale jobbing which was sought to be established by this Bill. If we required proof of what would be the results of the working of this Bill, it was only necessary to refer to the correspondence of Lord Cornwallis, recently published, and to the last speech which Lord Macaulay made in that House. He was in a position to state that within a few weeks of his much-lamented death, Lord Macaulay mentioned to a Member of the Indian Council that he still retained his opinion, and expressed his willingness to record it in writing. Lord Macaulay said—
  "But my firm opinion is that the day on which the Civil Service of India ceases to be a close service will be the beginning of an age of jobbing—the most monstrous, the most extensive, and the most perilous system of abuse in the distribution of patronage that we have ever witnessed. Every Governor General would in such case carry out with him, or would soon be followed by, a crowd of relatives, nephews, first and second cousins, friends and sons of friends, and political hangers-on; while every steamer arriving from the Red Sea would carry to India some adventurer bearing with him letters from some powerful man in England, all pressing for employment…Now, against evils like this there is but one security, and, I believe, but one, and that is, that the Civil Service be kept close."—[3 Hansard, cxxviii., 747–8.]
  Lord Macaulay added—
  "That excellent and valuable man, Lord William Bentinck, in the month he left India, said, 'I have now been here seven years, and during that time I have had to dispose of immense lucrative patronage, and I have never but once in all that time been able to do a single service to a single old English friend.'"—Ibid., 749.]
  The Right Hon. Baronet, the Member for Herts (Sir Edward Bulwer Lytton), on the 15th June, 1855, in a speech which he delivered in this House, said—
  "Let me again impress upon this House that it is not enough to subject any candidate to a rigorous examination to decoy into the public service the rising energy and talent of the country, unless you set before them all the lawful prizes of the profession, and convince them that not one such prize shall be abstracted from their ambition, and bestowed upon gentlemen who, however able, are not connected with the service. If the public service is to be really a profession, it ought to be as monstrous to give one of the great prizes in that service to a man who has not been actively distinguished in it, as it would be to give a clever lawyer the Colnelcy of a Regiment, or a gallant officer the Mastership of the Rolls." [Hansard, cxxxviii.,

  1035
  It should he borne in mind that by the Act the 21st and 22nd of Victoria, "all contracts, liabilities, and engagements upon the East India Company were made equally binding upon the Crown," and that as the present members of the Indian Civil Service, numbering something less than one thousand persons, went out to India with certain rights guaranteed to them, and as they on their part had, agreeably to the terms of their covenant, subscribed a large percentage of their salaries to the two funds, known as the Civil Service Fund and the Civil Service Annuity Fund, they were clearly entitled to compensation. Yet would it be believed that no compensation clauses whatever had been inserted in the Bill? With regard to compensation there were two ways in which it might be granted. It might be granted either by refunding to a member the amount which he had subscribed to these funds with indemnity for past services, or by guaranteeing the Widows and Orphans 'Fund, and by granting increased pensions at the expiration of service. Unless some such provision were made the right lion. Baronet might depend upon it that he would experience the same difficulty and create the same feeling of discontent which he had raised among the military officers by his amalgamation measure of last Session. Although the right hon. Baronet hoped to reconcile them to that measure by offering them a miserable pittance of £50 a year and staff employment, he believed that there were some 1,000 or 600 officers totally and entirely without employment. Without following the right hon. Baronet into the whole of his introductory speech, he would merely observe that he laboured under a misapprehension in saying that "there is no such appointment as assistant collector;" on the contrary, there were just as many now as formerly, and on referring to the East India Register for 1860, he found that there were in the Bengal Presidency alone no less than 139 posted assistants, and 23 unposted. He could also produce heaps of witnesses to prove that it was to its very peculiar training—namely, that of commencing as assistant collector, and then gradually rising to be a deputy collector, joint magistrate, full collector, magistrate, and civil and sessions Judge—that the Covenanted Civil Service' had gained its high reputation and efficiency. As the right hon. Baronet had quoted Mr. Mills's work on Representative Government he hoped the House would also permit him to
  1036
  quote a brief passage from that work. Mr. Mills said—
  "It is in no way unjust that public officers thus selected and trained should be exclusively eligible to offices which require specially Indian knowledge and experience. If any door to higher appointments, without passing through the lower, be opened even for occasional use, there will be such incessant knocking at it by persons of influence, that it will be impossible ever to keep it closed. The only excepted appointment should be the highest one of all. The Viceroy of British India should be a person selected from all Englishmen for his great capacity for government."
  He took upon himself to say that this measure would be as unpopular with the Natives of India as with the Civil Service. The Natives already complained that a different class of men were sent out to India now—men who did not appear to possess that traditionary sympathy towards them which existed in the days of our Metcalfes, Thomasons, Colvins, Lawrences, Edmonstones, Plowdens, Prinseps, Yules, and a host of other bright Indian names. He was really very reluctant to detain the House longer than he could possibly help, but he could not sit down without alluding to the very extraordinary manner in which the right hon. Baronet had behaved in regard to this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman, in reply to a question which he put to him on the 8th of March last, assured him that the only Bills of importance which he proposed to bring in this Session were those relating to the Council and the amalgamation of the Courts, Nos. 1 and 2 Bills. He then withheld from the House the dissents or protests of his Council against this Bill. It appeared to him that the right hon. Baronet, with the active assistance of the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn, was determined to destroy that glorious Service by whose untiring energies and cordial co-operation with their gallant military brethren that magnificent empire had been won and governed—a service which had existed pure and unsullied since the year 1765, when it was recast by its beloved chief, Lord Clive, and which had not only on several occasions received the thanks of the Sovereign and both Houses of Parliament, but had been spoken of in highly eulogistic language by successive Governor Generals, from the high-minded Lord Wellesley to the present Lord Canning.
  MR. LIDDELLsaid, he quite dissented from the opinion expressed by the hon. Member (Mr. Scully) that hon. Gentlemen in that House, unconnected with India,

  1037
  did not feel a deep interest in Indian subjects. For himself, and for others who were placed in the same circumstances with himself, he must express his fullest sympathy with the right hon. Baronet, the Secretary of State for India, when he expressed his deep sense of the responsibility attaching to the introduction of three of the most extensive measures Indian policy which it had ever been the lot of any man to bring down to the House in one night. An equal a mount of responsibility attached to every Member who gave a vote on those three great measures of reform. But their position was different, and in some respects less favourable for arriving at a correct judgment on these matters than that of the right hon. Baronet; for he was surrounded by a Council, composed of men of long Indian experience and of the highest ability, to guide him; while they were deprived by an inconsiderate vote of the presence in that House of Members of that Council. The propriety of the course which he (Mr. Liddell) had suggested when the Government of India was transferred to the Crown was now fully apparent, when they were called upon to decide on measures which changed the governing power of India and established new courts of judicature, and when they were called upon to make a sweeping change in the administrative body, without the benefit of the assistance which such a Council could afford. The point they had to consider was, whether those grave objections were had been urged against the measure were not more than counterbalanced by its advantages. These objections were mainly two: one of them was, that it aimed a blow at the system which had produced such a distinguished body of men as the civil servants of India. He fully admitted that, unless proper safeguards surrounded this measure, it might give a death-blow to the Civil Service of India. And when they spoke of that system, they must not forget that it had been described in this House as one which had grown up under favouritism, nepotism, and jobbery; but a more honourable set of men could not be found than the civil servants connected with the Government of India. That body had, nevertheless, grown up under the old system. A large change had been made in the service in 1853, which had been followed up in 1858, and they had not yet had time to judge whether the new system would produce men equally eminent. The next objection
  1038
  was that this was a breach of faith with the aspiring youth of this country who had been invited to compete for appointments in the Civil Service of India. But, on the other hand, it must be remembered that it was in their favour that the old exclusive body was destroyed, and it was but reasonable to expect that some regard would be paid by them to the claims of the State at the present junction. It was for the House, then, to say whether the objections to the change outweighed the advantages of it. A further objection had, indeed, been made—that by the proposed alteration an amount of patronage was placed in the hands of the Secretary of State, which would work to the detriment of the public service. But he did not think the Bill was fairly open to that objection, though he still thought the House ought to have distinctly placed before them the regulations that were proposed, in order that they might be assured that proper restrictions and safeguards, upon the authority of the Secretary of State, were inserted in this Bill. He would now come to the recommendations in favour of their acceptance of this Bill. They had first of all the stern fact before them of the great number of persons who ex necessitate rei had been appointed to fill the vacancies created by the extraordinary emergencies that had arisen. These persons in the Bengal presidency alone had been stated to amount to 800. He believed that at the present moment all these appointments were in strictness illegal, and the object of this Bill was to legalise them. He wished to call attention to a Minute of the Governor General, issued so lately as August of last year, in which he said, speaking of the low ebb to which the Civil Service of Bengal was reduced, that it admitted of no remedy but a great increase in the Civil Service, if the covenanted Service was to be maintained at all. He stated that in the Punjab and Oude, which, being non-regulation provinces, admitted of a larger infusion of the non-covenanted Service than elsewhere—there were in the Punjab, out of 116 assistant and deputy commissioners, 71 uncovenanted, where the proportions ought to have been about equal; that in Oude, out of 36 such appointments, 26 belonged to the uncovenanted Service, there were three vacant, and no covenanted servants were available to fill those vacancies. The remedy which the Governor General suggested was that these places should be

  1039
  thrown open for competition among the junior officers of the army; and Sir Bartle Frere, a high authority, concurred with him. He must remind the House that the great competitive system, from which so much was expected, had proved inadequate to supply the demand. In July last year 80 prizes were competed for, and only 150 persons came forward to compete; so that, for some reason or other, the prizes that were held out in India failed to induce a sufficient choice of qualified candidates to offer themselves. He thought, therefore, that the Government had no choice but to widen the field. He did not argue for a great enlargement: he hoped the powers given by this Bill would be used discreetly, wisely, and sparingly, but he could not but think that great advantages would be derived by the Indian Government from opening up the service, and that it would instil new vigour and honest rivalry into the system itself. What had they lately seen in India? They had sent out some of their ablest financiers to restore the embarrassed finances of India. Were they received with jealousy? Had not their mission been eminently successful? He hoped and believed the same results would follow from the infusion of new blood into other parts of the system of Government. And that led him to the last feature of the measure he wished to notice—the effect which this measure would produce on the Native mind in India. That was a feature so valuable that in his mind it outweighed every objection that might be urged against the Bill. They all knew the effect which the prospect of advancement in life had on all classes of society, from the boy in the village-school to the highest member of the Bar. What was it that cheered the learned Attorney General in the midst of his laborious life but the hope of his one day reaching the Woolsack. They knew that of late the Natives had devoted themselves to European studies; that they were eminently qualified by nature for literary attainments; and they were entering in large numbers upon the study of law and jurisprudence. By the Act of 1853 the hopes of the Natives of India had been raised by the declaration that henceforward no distinction would be made, either of race or religion, in the appointment to the highest posts under the Government. He was at a loss to see how this declaration could be reconciled with the maintenance of a strictly Covenanted Civil Service. Colonel Durand
  1040
  lately used these remarkable words "that the English had struck no root in India, that they existed only on the surface, and their only source of influence was through the military power." He was glad to find that that able man was himself to benefit by this change of the law, and that though not of the Covenanted Service he was to be appointed to fill the office of Foreign Secretary to the Council of India. He hoped he would inaugurate in his own person this beneficial change of system, which would elevate the Natives not only in office but in their own eyes, and would abolish the distinction of abject submission on the one hand and complete domination on the other between the governors and the governed. He believed that by opening posts of responsibility and emolument to Europeans and Natives alike, we should do more to fix our rule in India upon a firm and substantial basis than by any other measure our Government could devise.
  MR. LAYARDsaid, he thought his hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Mr. Vansittart) had shown unnecessary alarm when he talked of this Bill sapping and destroying the Civil Service. If there were I the least danger that this Bill would have I any such effect, he should be the last man to give it his support. There were no greater names in our history than the names of Indian civil servants, nor had the Natives of India ever had better friends. The Service, now that it was an open competitive Service, was in a very different position to the time when it was a close: Service. Such being the case, he did not object to the alterations proposed by this Bill, provided that certain words which he thought necessary were inserted in it—for, as it now stood, he feared it would be a most dangerous measure. He had much confidence in the present Secretary for India, and he hoped he should have as much in future Secretaries, but it did not go quite so far as that of his hon. Friend opposite. The opinion of the Council of India had on some occasions been dealt with somewhat lightly; on two important measures—the imposition of the income tax and the amalgamation of the armies—it was well known the almost unanimous opinion of the Council had been overruled. The manner in which the promise regarding the medical service of India had been disregarded was a proof, too, of the value which was to be attached to mere promises. What were the facts? It was announced

  1041
  that the Natives of India were entitled to all places which were open to Europeans, and the medical service was particularly mentioned. But, after several young Natives had come over to this country to educate themselves at a great expense, and had obtained distinction here, they were suddenly told that the Secretary of State had changed his mind, and that since the amalgamation of the armies they could not hope for army medical employment in India. After considerable pressure had been put on the Government they were told that if they liked they might go to Sierra Leone. This was an illustration of how little they could trust in promises, and how necessary it was they should have definite arrangements included in the Bill. Therefore, unless words to the effect that a residence of seven years in India, a knowledge of the Native languages, and, perhaps, in some cases, an examination should be necessary to entitle a man to employment in the Civil Service, he should be very much disposed to oppose the Bill; but, probably, the right hon. Gentleman would be inclined to give way to the almost unanimous opinion of the House. Two classes of persons would be affected by this Bill—the independent Europeans and the Natives. With regard to the European settlers, he should be glad to see men duly qualified holding the positions in India to which they were entitled from knowledge of the country and of the habits and languages of its inhabitants. Such appointments had already been made, and one of the objects of this Bill was to legalize them. The great danger of jobbery would arise from persons going out from this country with strong recommendations from persons in authority at home or with influence with persons in power in India. He had certainly heard lately of one or two remarkable cases in which there had been something very nearly approaching to jobbery. Another object of this Bill was to legalize appointments which might be made, and the want of some such measure was strongly illustrated by a case which had lately occurred. Captain Meadows Taylor had distinguished himself very much in au official capacity in the ceded districts of the Dekkan. By his exertions roads had been made and a variety of improvements had been carried out, and there was no man who was regarded by the Natives of that part of India with greater respect. When those districts were annexed to the Crown the Government refused to appoint him to the government of them because he
  1042
  was not a covenanted servant, and had appointed in his place Captain Cooper, who, as the head of the Enam Commission, was one of the most unpopular men in the West of India. As regarded this class of persons, he thought it essential that they should have that knowledge of the country which could only be acquired by long residence, and he thought seven years was a very reasonable period to require. As regarded the Natives, the question was more difficult. He thought they ought to open Civil Service appointments to Natives the same as to Europeans, but there was the difficulty of the expense of coming over to this country for the purpose of passing an examination. To remedy this he should propose one of two things—either that the Government should send young men over to the colleges here, and pay their expenses to the time of examination, or that there should be a Board of Examination in India, to which young Natives could apply who had prepared themselves to compete for Civil Service appointments. He quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman in the principle on which the Bill was founded. If they gave the Natives an education equal to the education received by Europeans, it was absurd to withhold from them employment in the Civil Service such as their attainments entitled them to. A body of highly educated discontented young men would be more dangerous than an army of mutinous Sepoys; and, therefore, he was happy to see that by this Bill an opportunity would be given them of entering the Civil Service of the Government. But, at the same time, unless such terms as he had mentioned were introduced, he should be unwilling that the measure should pass, because it would open a door that would interfere seriously with good government in India, and might have the effect, as it had been said, of undermining and destroying the Civil Service.
  LORD STANLEYsaid, there were two points on which the House seemed to have come, if not to an unanimous, at least to a very general conclusion—that the principle of the Bill was sound, but that the details would require careful supervision—and that some conditions or restrictions ought to be inserted in it which were not in it now. When the Bill was brought in he stated that he entirely approved the principle of it; but the more he had considered the matter and the more he had been able to gather the opinions of those interested in and informed on Indian affairs the

  1043
  more he was satisfied that those securities which were alluded to the other night, and which he believed it was the intention of his right hon. Friend to insert in Regulations to be framed by him the Bill itself, and not which might be revoked a these two securities, by far the most important as a limitation to the admissions into the Civil Service was that a man should have resided seven years in India; and to that he was inclined to hope the right hon. Gentleman would not offer any objection. But as to the other requirement—the test of knowledge—he could well understand the hesitation of the right hon. Gentleman, seeing that cases might occur of appointments in the Presidency towns where no knowledge of Native languages was required. If, however, they were to choose between two possible inconveniences, he thought the possibility of excluding one or two men otherwise qualified would be a far less evil than the absence of the security implied in the language tests. If it were limited, as he thought it might be, to the revenue and judicial branch, and if a proviso were inserted that in the remaining branches of the service the same test of knowledge should be required as was required now of civil servants before appointment to the same offices, he could not conceive that any possible inconvenience would arise. If that condition were insisted upon there would be four distinct checks on any abuse of patronage by the Governor General. There would be the check of residence, the test of language, the confirmation by the Secretary of State, and the further independent confirmation by the Council. He had heard doubts suggested whether the confirmation by the Secretary of State would be anything more than a mere form. It was said that the Secretary of State would be apt to consider that the Governor General was the best judge of the case, and would accordingly be guided by what was determined at Calcutta. In answer to that he would point out that within the last two years, since his right hon. Friend had been in office, two appointments had been made—made he did not doubt, from the best motives, by the Governor General—which his right hon. Friend considered had been improperly made; and, accordingly, those appointments were cancelled. If that were done by the Secretary of State at present, when he was not called upon specially to interfere in the
  1044
  matter, much more was it likely to be done when his confirmation was specially required, and, therefore, when he shared quite as much as the Governor General in, the responsibility of the appointments. As to the interference of the Council being a check not to be relied on, he knew no men who were in a position to give n more independent verdict upon a question of the kind than the Members of the Council. They had nothing to hope and nothing to fear. They naturally liked to act in harmony with the Secretary of State; but he had seen enough of them to feel assured that, whatever respect they might feel either for the Governor General or the Secretary of State, if there was reasonable ground to suspect that undue favour had been shown in any appointment which they were called upon to sanction, they would do their duty in refusing their concurrence. As to the possibility of the Council being abolished, whatever might have been the opinion which prevailed two years ago, no one believed in that contingency now. In 1858, when the new arrangements were made, the popular theory was that Parliament would take such an interest in all Indian affairs that the Council would be unnecessary; but any one who had watched the empty state of the House when Indian discussions had taken place within the last two years or eighteen months, could form his own judgment on the soundness of that view. What, then, were the objections to the principle of the Bill? His hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Mr. Vansittart) told his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that this was an attempt to do away with the competitive system, and to return, by an indirect method, to the system of patronage. If he regarded it in that light, he was the last person to consent to have any share in it. But his hon. Friend contented himself with saying that such would be the effect, without attempting to prove it, except as far as to say that if the Bill passed the old abuse of Governors-General taking out their relations and friends and providing for them at the expense of the public would be revived. Now, inasmuch as no Governor General, as a general rule, remained in India seven years, it would be impossible for him to provide for his friends in that manner; for he did not think they would be content to follow him out, and to hold no office, or only a very subordinate office, for seven years, with the chance of some succeeding Governor General taking pity on their for-

  1045
  lorn condition, He did not think that any man in his sound senses would be induced to go to India with such prospects.
  MR. VANSITTART: The noble Lord has misunderstood me. I quoted the last speech which the late Lord Macaulay made on India in that House, and I quoted it as Lord Macaulay's opinion.
  LORD STANLEYsaid, the opinion might have been that of Lord Macaulay, but the application was his hon. Friend's. He (Lord Stanley) did not know under what circumstances Lord Macaulay's speech was delivered; but he had no doubt that if Lord Macaulay had had an opportunity of considering this Bill he would have come to a different conclusion as to its effect. No doubt, if the system which prevailed before 1773 had been continued they would be likely to have the old abuses connected with it. His hon. Friend said farther that he believed the Natives would object to the new system, and would look upon it as an interference with them, because men of an inferior class would be appointed to higher offices. Considering that one of the principal objects of the Bill was to admit the Natives to higher offices than they were now allowed to hold, he should be surprised to hear of any objection on their part. He would be a bold man who undertook to say what the opinion of the Natives of India was. No one could answer for the opinion of a community so vast and so heterogeneous. But he had seen numerous Indian newspapers, written in English, but to a great degree owned and influenced by Natives, and he had never seen one which did not, when the question was touched upon, express a strong sympathy with the desire to open the Civil Service to Natives. The question was raised what would be the effect of the Bill upon the Civil Service itself—whether it would not discourage young men of talent from offering themselves for examination? In considering how far the Bill would affect the Civil Service, they must endeavour to see what amount of competition there would be on the part of outsiders with the civil servants. He thought it had been abundantly shown that under the provisions of the Bill no man would be likely to go out from England with the view of obtaining one of the offices to which it referred. They must, therefore, look only to the case of persons actually resident in India; and all who had experience of Indian affairs would confirm him when he said that the number of Europeans in India quali-
  1046
  fied for high office in the Civil Service, and not belonging either to the civil or the military service, was comparatively inconsiderable. There would be a certain number of military officers admitted to offices from which they had hitherto been excluded. There would be a certain number of uncovenanted servants who would obtain the right, to which he thought they were justly entitled, of higher promotion. There would also be a few barristers. He did not think that the appointments of the latter class would be very frequent, because a successful barrister was doing better for himself by remaining in his profession than if he accepted high office, and a barrister who had failed in his profession was not likely to be selected. Besides these, there only remained the Natives, and he thought there would be no inclination on the part of Governors-General or Governors of Presidencies to be unduly precipitate in appointing Natives to high offices. He thought they were all agreed that although it was right Natives should be appointed, it was a great experiment, and one to be tried very cautiously. Looking to all these considerations, he greatly doubted whether the civil servants would be affected by this Bill in anything like the proportion of 5 per cent of all its appointments, and the civil servants themselves were very formidable competitors. They were selected when young men by the best of all possible methods—they were carefully trained for their special duties; when they arrived in India they were placed in responsible situations, though still young; their whole life was a preparation for holding higher offices:—and if, with those advantages in their favour, they were no-able to hold their own against competitors not having those advantages, all he could say was that they must be very inferior in ability and energy to what he had always believed them to be. As to what would be gained it was not difficult to see. They would enlarge the field of selection for the public service they would give a fair encouragement to the Natives and uncovenanted servants, which they had not had hitherto; they would apply a stimulus to the energies of the civil servants themselves; and what he regarded as most important of all, they would effectually remove that feeling of jealousy, not altogether reasonable, and which nevertheless existed very strongly on the part of unofficial Europeans, which at present was one of the greatest social evils in India. He be-

  1047
  lieved that the Bill, limited as he proposed, would be a very valuable measure; but he was bound to say that he concurred in the opinion of those hon. Members who recommended that the authority to appoint to offices should be inserted in the Bill, and not left to regulations prepared by the Secretary of State, and that he was quite prepared to take the sense of the House upon the propsal to insert them.
  MR. PULLERsaid, the most important clause in the Bill dealt with two matters—first, power was given to the Secretary of State to make Regulations under which exceptional appointments might be made; and, secondly, the right lion. Gentleman would have power to confirm the appointments made in India. He deemed it of far more importance that the Secretary of State should be guided by his Council when engaged in a legislative capacity in framing Regulations than when he was acting executively in confirming appointments; and he should, therefore, propose that the power of framing Regulations should only be exercised with the assent of the majority of the Council. As to the confirmation of those appointments in India, he should be willing to leave it to the judgment of the Secretary of State alone. The first clause appeared to him to contain the real gist and pith of the measure. He concurred entirely in the preamble of the Bill. As regards the Civil Service in India at present, he presumed that it was not denied that it had been intended in some measure that the Natives should be employed in it; but he thought it would be very inexpedient to break down the practical monopoly of a large class of valuable appointments which the Civil Service of India had long enjoyed unless upon some distinct principle, in order that they might know exactly what to expect in future. He contended that the first clause of the Bill went far beyond the preamble or the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill, and did not sufficiently describe the covenanted and uncovenanted services of India. If any post had been held by a non-covenanted servant, the clause authorized the filling up of all similar appointments in the same way, so that it would be almost impossible to say what offices were not equally open to covenanted and non-covenanted servants. He maintained that either the Home Government or the Indian authorities ought to decide what appointments were to be open and what closed. A young man entering the
  1048
  Service had a right to know with certainty, what his prospects were. Moreover, there was the interest of the public to be considered, that the Service should be as efficient as possible; and to secure this they should hold out the greatest possible inducements to young men of ability to go out to India.
  SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, he had no objection to the abstract principle of the Bill, but thought the House ought to be told what was the opinion of the most experienced civil servants in India on the subject. If such information were not furnished they should appoint a Committee to inquire into the matter. The real security for the good government of India was that person should devote themselves early to the Indian service, and should obtain their appointments under such a system of competition and examination as would prevent abuses. With regard to the appointments of Natives he was ready to give a carte blanche to the Government; but if the right hon. Gentleman wanted really to do the Natives a service be had better increase their present miserable rate of pay, which would probably be a greater boon than that now proposed to be conferred upon them. As to the other branches of the uncovenanted service, including persons of European origin, it was extremely hard to draw the line where uncovenanted service ended and the covenanted began. But the real difficulty arose in respect of those who were not in the public service at all. The Bill proposed to throw open the service of India in the broadest manner, and he thought that, unless restrictions were introduced, such a rule would lead to great abuses. The noble Lord (Lord Stanley) said that no person in his senses would go out to India for the chance of obtaining these appointmenst. He differed from the noble Lord, and believed that if this Bill passed without proper securities numbers of persons would go out to India for the purpose of seeking these appointments. With regard to the Indian Council, the right hon. Gentleman had done his utmost to destroy its independence. If the Members had a seat in the House of Commons their opinions would be known and their arguments heard; but, instead of this, they sat and worked in the dark; so that the Council was practically reduced to a nullity. He asked the House to consider whether, in adopting this Bill, they would not tend to destroy the efficiency of the sys-

  1049
  tem of competition which had been introduced into India? It would be a great discouragement to the civil servants of India if they were led to suppose that they would not obtain the great prizes of the service.
  SIR MINTO FARQUHARsaid, the right hon. Gentleman seemed to have proceeded on the exhaustive principle, by bringing forward on one evening four important measures connected with India. Surely it would have been better to divide them, and to have given a greater opportunity for considering and discussing them. It was not to be wondered, considering the professed objects of this Bill, that it should have excited great alarm among those belonging to the Indian Civil Service. He assumed, with reference to the seven years' residence in India, and the knowledge of languages, to be required of uncovenanted servants, that the right hon. Gentleman would not oppose such a provision; but, besides these restrictions, he thought it would be advisable that they should undergo the same tests to which the present covenanted servants were liable, and should enter into the same agreement against trading and against engaging in other pursuits. In the Bill to provide for the amalgamation of the armies the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), whose name would be gratefully remembered by the officers and men of the Indian army, had procured the repetition of that clause of the Act of 1858, transferring the Government of India to Her Majesty, which guaranteed the rights and privileges of those officers and men, and he hoped that a provision would be introduced into this measure giving to the members of the Civil Service a similar guarantee. The Small Courts Act had recently passed the Legislative Council of India. Would the appointments under that Act come under the first or under the second clause of this Bill? If, under Clause 1, the appointments would not come under the control of the Home Government, nor be subject to the conditions which the right hon. Gentleman agreed should be introduced into the Bill. He would remind the House that the present competitive system for appointments into the Indian Civil Service had only been established in 1858. Every inducement had since been held out to encourage young men to enter into this competition, and, it was only fair and just, not only to the older members of the Civil Service, but to those who had more re-
  1050
  cently entered it, after passing a severe competitive examination, that such regulations and restrictions should be introduced into this Bill as would give them a guarantee upon which they could rely.
  MR. ADAMshared the regret which had been expressed by other hon. Members, that the right hon. Baronet had not produced all the papers which bore upon this question, and which might have enabled the House to come to a better decision. It was more necessary in the case of Indian subjects than of any others that the fullest information should be laid before the House. He thought it was a mistake to prevent the Members of the Councils from holding seats in that House, and he trusted that would be rectified. If this Bill was passed too rapidly through the House, Parliament would find that it was committing an act of short-sighted ingratitude to the Civil Service, which deserved well of the country, and of which the country was proud. The right hon. Gentleman had taken power to frame Regulations which were he said to prevent jobbery or other evils; but as the Bill now stood it contained no safeguards whatever. It contained no guarantee that the persons to be appointed under it would be required to have been resident a certain time in India, to understand the Native languages, or to submit to such an examination as was now undergone by the civil servants; nor was there any security for the funds to which those servants had so largely contributed. It broke faith with the "older civil servants who entered that service under the guarantee of an Act of Parliament, and with the younger who entered it by competition" upon conditions which, if this Bill passed, could not be fulfilled; and it broke faith with the public, who were interested in future competitions, and in the securing of the most efficient administrators for India. The present Secretary of State for India and Governor General might use their patronage fairly and honestly, but their successors might not act upon the same principle, and the House, as responsible for the Government of India, ought not to give the power conferred by this Bill without taking security for its proper exercise. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would have these restrictions put into the Bill.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEappealed to the House to adjourn the debate. They had now been employed discussing Indian questions since half past

  1051
  four o'clock; One Bill had passed through Committee and they had given a second reading to two; but this Bill appeared to him wholly inexplicable. There was no provision in the Bill to guard the Civil Service from injury, and he knew that a very large and influential portion of the Council had dissented from its provisions. He should now, therefore, move the adjournment of the debate, in order that the suggestions that had been made might be embodied in the Bill.
  MR. DANBY SEYMOURtrusted the lion, and gallant Gentleman would allow the second reading of the Bill to pass, if only pro formâ, as he could in Committee bring forward any of the matters of detail which he wished to be introduced into the Bill. With regard to the principle of the Bill, he did not see that the Secretary of State could have acted otherwise than he had clone, seeing that for years successive Secretaries of State had represented the difficulty they had in filling up places in the Civil Service. It could not be expected that the uncovenanted servants would be content with the subordinate position which they had hitherto held, and the House would hardly approve if the Secretary of State were to ask for a large sum of money to increase the covenanted service. Five or six years ago he suggested a somewhat similar arrangement, but the right hon. Gentleman saw objections to it. The difficulty that existed should be met in some way or other, and he could not see that this proposal would injure the Civil Service to the extent anticipated. It was thought that the new appointments would not be few, that the checks would be useless, and that the Secretary for India and the Governor General would join together to job the service; but that was not very likely. The civil servants considered that their vested rights were invaded, and so they were; but the answer to that was, that they could not fill all the places. And what was Government to do? Were they to leave the places unfilled? The system must be altered in some way, because many of the present appointments in India were illegal. There must be some solution of the difficulty, and the simplest and wisest way, and that by which least injuiry would be done to the Civil Service was that proposed by the right hon. Gentleman; and the noble Lord who had filled the same office before him was of the same opinion. No one supposed the noble Lord to wish to injure the Civil Service, and, in fact, no
  1052
  one who knew the Civil Service of India would wish to do away with it or to injure it. He himself believed that the Civil Service was as necessary to the Government of India as an aristocracy was to monarchy. They had a close service in Austria, in Russia, and in Prance, but none so close as the service in India, for in no other did the rule prevail that unless one entered as a boy he could not take place in the service. He could not but think that the Civil Service showed too great a distrust of the Government. Checks against abuse were proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. He had already agreed to the seven years' test of residence in India; he did not know whether he had agreed to the test of language, but that was a proper test, as a man of fair ability might learn two of the languages in a year; and the only other security that he believed necessary was to give every appointment publicity in the London Gazette, with the reasons for the appointments; They must show that they wished to keep good faith with the members of the Civil Service, who had always been distinguished for their ability, and to whom they owed so much in the good government of the empire; but, at the same time, the public necessities must be met, and he did not believe that a better way of meeting them could be shown than that proposed by the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. HENLEYdid not exactly see why the debate should be adjourned, nor why any blame should be thrown upon the Government for having introduced four Bills upon Indian subjects on one evening, especially as the appearance of the House during the discussion showed that Indian subjects did not excite any paramount interest. It had been said that the covenanted servants showed unreasonable distrust of the Government; but it should be borne in mind that those servants could know nothing of the intentions of the Government but what they saw within the four corners of this Bill. They did not know what the right hon. Gentleman's Regulations were to be, nor how far any other Secretary of State for India might alter those Regulations; and men whose interests were at stake were apt to be alarmed when they saw such a state of things. What position would the Bill as it stood put these gentlemen in? Great interest had been taken in the mode of filling up appointments by means of examinations; and he honestly declared that

  1053
  when he read the Bill he wondered what its object was. He could not help thinking that the right lion. Gentleman, having got as much brains as was required by means of examination, wanted an element of a different kind to mix with it. No doubt some thought there were certain advantages in admitting persons to the service who had not gone through the ordinary preparation and examination; but it was desirable that the conditions on which they were to be allowed to enter should be defined. There was, however, no reason why the number of servants should not be increased by means of the crucible of examination. Was it, then, anything but reasonable that the civil servants should wish to know the terms upon which other persons would be allowed to enter the service?—and for his part he thought it but reasonable that the conditions should be inserted in the Bill. He himself had great faith in the present Secretary of State for India; but then he might die to-morrow, and no one knew whether his successor would be as scrupulous—and this was his reason why the conditions should be part of the measure. These Regulations, however, could not be introduced until the second reading was agreed to; but unless such conditions were introduced a fatal blow would be struck at the system of examinations, for no young man would go through the expensive and laborious course necessary for an examination, and run the risk of the climate also, if he was likely to have his prospects destroyed by any interruption which was not well guarded. He hoped, therefore, that the Regulations would be introduced into the Bill, and that ample time would be given for consideration.
  MR. CRAWFORDjoined in the request that the House would not consent to an adjournment. He thought that the people of India had an interest in this matter as well as the civil servants, and he was prepared to give his assent to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman. There were certain appointments in the Presidencies which his experience told him it would be very desirable that the Government should have the opportunity of filling up by persons who brought to India recent experience from England. At the present moment the appointment of Collector of Customs' at Bombay was vacant, and he had reason to believe that the Government of Bombay were in great difficulty to find in the Civil Service, without detriment to
  1054
  other interests, a gentleman sufficiently well qualified to fill that appointment—["Oh, oh!"]—he meant with regard to his experience of the general trade and commerce of the country. Hon. Gentlemen who cried "Oh!" perhaps did not remember that a large interest would be affected by the manner in which this vacancy should be filled up, and the mercantile community at Bombay had a right to expect at the hands of the Government, that the Government at Bombay should select to this office a gentleman who would do justice to their interests, and he knew that the Government had great difficulty in finding in the Civil Service a gentleman properly qualified for the appointment. Again, there was the appointment of police magistrates, who had to administer the English law as between Europeans, to superintend the police, and to do a variety of other matters, and it was very desirable that any gentleman who might be appointed to fill that office should be possessed of qualifications which it could not be supposed a gentleman in the Civil Service' would have. He thought the object which some hon. Gentlemen had in view would be obtained if the restrictions were made to apply to what was ordinarily termed judicial, magisterial, and financial functions of the Government. On the whole he gave his hearty assent to the measure of the right hon. Gentleman.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONthought there was no wish in any quarter to appoint persons to lucrative offices over the heads of members of the Civil Service, thus depriving them of the rewards they were fairly entitled to; but if, as the hon. Member who spoke last had stated, there was any difficulty in selecting from the Civil Service gentlemen qualified to fill the offices he had named, something must be at fault in the education or examination of those who entered the service. If mercantile law and practice were necessary to the Indian service they should form part of the examinations. He regretted that the attention given to the affairs of India did not seem greater now than before its Government was transferred to the Crown. The present Bill did not contain more than the preamble of what was intended. The principle of this Bill was not contained within its' limits. The important part of it was contained in those Regulations and restrictions which the House had not seen; and unless they were of a satisfactory nature the measure might be injurious in its

  1055
  effects, instead of promoting the prosperity of India. The right course for the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India to pursue was pointed out by the Act which abolished the East India Company's government. It would be an evasion of the intention of the House in passing that Act if the Secretary of State, instead of submitting those measures to his Council, referred them to special Committees of that Council, and then came down and said that hon. Members were not, entitled to the opinions of those Committees because they were not the opinions of the Council. His hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Portsmouth he was sure had moved the adjournment, not with any desire to impede the business of the House, but in order that they might not proceed with the Bill without that information which was requisite to enable them to form a sound opinion on the subject.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, that at a meeting held on the previous day a Court of Proprietors of the East India Company passed a Resolution, expressing its opposition to the clauses in the Bill, which gave the Secretary of State in Council unlimited discretion over certain appointments in the public service in India, to the detriment of" the interests of that country, and in breach of good faith with those who had qualified for appointments under existing acts.
  MR. TORRENShoped that the right hon. Baronet would accede to the suggestion of the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn (Lord Stanley), and insert the safeguards to which that noble Lord had alluded; that he would accede to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Hertfordshire (Mr. Puller), and insert those offices which parties were to hold under the provisions of this Bill; and that he would produce the opinion of the Committee to whom he had referred the measure.
  SIR CHARLES WOODthought that he had consulted the convenience of hon. Members who were anxious to take part in the debate on these measures by putting all the Bills on the paper for one evening. By that course he had insured that they would come before the House on a particular occasion. He, therefore, hoped that the hon. Baronet, the Member for Portsmouth, would not press his Motion for an adjournment. The right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Oxfordshire, and the noble Lord, the Member for King's Lynn, con-
  1056
  curred that there was no serious objection to the second reading; and hon. Gentlemen who had Amendments ought to be desirous that the Bill should get into Committee in order that they might propose them. He was not surprised that this Bill should excite great interest among those who felt an anxiety in respect of the Civil Service in India. He did not for a moment believe that the Civil servants would be injured by the Bill. It was only in exceptional cases that posts hitherto held exclusively by covenanted servants would be occupied by other persons when it was required by the public necessities of India. Some hon. Gentlemen had objected to it as a new principle, but, in fact, it had prevailed for the last sixty or seventy years. Officers of the army and gentlemen not in the service of Government had been introduced as necessity required;—and the fact was that at the present moment the covenanted Service could not furnish a sufficient number of men to do the duties which were absolutely necessary. Lord Canning, in a despatch which had been alluded to, proposed that a certain number of officers of the army should undergo a competitive examination in order to meet the exigencies of the public service, but this could not be done, as it was contrary to law. At the present time covenanted servants of four years' standing are placed in magisterial and other positions which properly demanded twelve years' standing. It had been said that there was no necessity for this Bill but the truth was, that men were wanted to fill places in Madras and in Bengal, and competitive examination could not supply them in time from the Covenanted Service. Lord Canning had stated that most strongly, as also had Mr. Ricketts, Mr. Hamilton, and Sir F. Halliday. An hon. Gentleman had expressed a wish that a list of places which might be held by uncovenanted persons should be inserted in the Bill; but that had been found, after full consideration, to be impossible, and the best plan was deemed to be to take exceptional powers to deal with exceptional cases, subject to certain checks to guard against abuse of those powers. A good deal of debate had turned upon the question whether the Regulations should be inserted in the Bill? He could not deny that that was a natural wish, and to the extent of a seven years' limit he should not object to insert it in the Bill. Some difficulties might arise in requiring a seven years' residence for

  1057
  persons placed in different positions at the Presidency towns. The Collector of Customs at Bombay had recently come home, and there was not a single available civil servant to fill his place, which was temporarily occupied by a deputy collector. Something had been said about languages, but he thought that a better qualification than a mere knowledge of languages would be the competency of the person selected to perform the duties of the office. He could not, of course, specify the exact words which he would propose to meet the wishes of lion. Gentlemen, but he was ready to introduce into the Bill the Regulations, as far as they were capable of being reduced, into a clear and definite form. He hoped that the lion. Baronet would be satisfied with that assurance, and would allow the Bill to be now read a second time, upon the understanding that, before the Committee, endeavours would be made to meet his wishes as far as possible.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment if the hon. Baronet would fix the Committee for that day fortnight.
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, he would name the Committee for that day week.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, that in that case he should press the Amendment.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned," put, and negatived.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read 2°, and committed for Monday next.
  House adjourned at half after Twelve o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL.—3a Wills of Personalty by British Subjects.

WESTMINSTER IMPROVEMENTS BILL.
On the Order of the Day for the Third Reading of this Bill,
VISCOUNT LIFFORDrose to call the attention of the House to the Acts 8 & 9 Vict. c. 178 and 16 & 17 Vict. c. 176. The noble Viscount said that in 1845 an Act of Parliament was passed by which a Commission was constituted to open a street leading from the Houses of Parliament to Buckingham Palace. This was be done at a cost of £150,000, and the Commissioners subscribed £50,000 among

979
themselves, re-payment of which was to be postponed until after every other debt and claim was satisfied. In 1847 another Act passed which authorized the raising of other sums, and also empowered the Commissioners to fly an unlimited number of "kites." In 1852 they bought 121 properties. The street, now known as Victoria Street, was then, opened, and the ground they had to dispose of was valued at £400,000, while the mortgages were £128,000, and the bonds £130,000, leaving a large surplus. But between April, 1852, and December, 1854, the Commissioners had incurred liabilities to the extent of £1,043,246. It was right to state that the Chairman of the Commissioners had from the first opposed these proceedings, and had remonstrated by letter and in every possible way. The Commissioners got rid of their chairman and another member, and at the end of the two years they had contrived to borrow £700,000 more than the property was worth. This property was sufficient to pay off the debts, but not a farthing would be left to the bondholders. A new Commission was now appointed, and it was most important that their good name should not suffer from former transactions; he would, therefore, state that the new Commissioners were in no way responsible for the misdeeds of their predecessors. The street was now opened, and would, when completed, be one of the finest in London. But it was necessary to put an end to the present unfortunate position of the property; and the new Commissioners had, therefore, introduced the present Bill to enable them to sell the property and pay off the mortgagees; but there would be nothing left for the bondholders. This Westminster Commission had proved a great blow to enterprises of the same kind; but it was only right it should be known that up to the year 1852 the speculation did pay, and it was owing solely to the extravagant conduct pursued after that period, and for which the present Commissioners were in no way responsible, that the undertaking had been brought to its present miserable condition. The street was then open from end to end, and the Commission had nothing to do but let the land, and carry out the object for which the aid of the Government had been granted. It ought to go forth that undertakings of this kind would pay, except in cases like this, in which such extraordinary powers were given.
LORD REDESDALEthought what had
980
been stated was very important; it had been a most extraordinary transaction from first to last. The present Bill was intended to remedy the difficulties in which the whole undertaking had been placed.
Bill read 3a, and passed.

ADMIRAL ELLIOT AND THE FRENCH DOCKYARDS.—OBSERVATIONS.
THE EARL OF HARDWICKEsaid, he wished to refer to a matter that affected the character of a private individual. He had given notice by letter to the noble Duke the head of the Admiralty; he regretted that the noble Duke was not in his place, but he did not intend to say anything that required an answer. What he wished to refer to was a statement made by the noble Duke, on Tuesday evening, affecting the character of a gallant officer in the navy. In the course of a discussion which took place that evening on the Government of the Navy Bill, in adverting to certain statements that had been made by Sir John Pakington in "another place," the noble Duke said—
"The noble Earl first called your Lordships' attention to the question of iron-cased ships, and referred to a speech lately made in the other House, founded on information furnished to a right hon. Baronet by Admiral Elliot. Admiral Elliot went to France, and applied, through the English Minister there, for leave to visit the dockyards of that country, in the same way as French officers have often applied for leave to visit our dockyards. His request was acceded to with the civility which the French authorities would naturally desire to show in such a case. Admiral Elliot went, and saw all that was going on in those establishments; but I must confess that, under the circumstances, I sincerely regret the course which he took on his return to England. If I myself had given a French officer permission to view our dockyards, and I afterwards found that he took the first opportunity of publishing the results of his inspection in the manner adopted by the gallant Admiral, I certainly should not think he had done a very friendly act."
Their Lordships would agree with him that such a statement, made by the noble Duke, might lead one to suppose that Admiral Elliot had visited the French dockyards, perhaps under the direction of the Admiralty, probably of his own accord; but, at all events, that he did something contrary to good manners, or played something like the part of a spy; that he had come back and related what he ought not to have related; or done something he ought not to have done. He was sure the House would also admit that between the officers of the French and English Navies there ought to exist a mutual feeling of brotherly and professional respect and re-

981
gard; so that if the day should ever unhappily come when political events and difficulties should plunge the two nations into war, they might engage in that war free from any feelings of personal animosity. This would not be the case if it was thought that on either side anything like a system of espionage had been carried on. He was sure that if political differences ever led to such a melancholy event as a war between the two countries, the chivalrous feeling of the English naval officers would only be surpassed by that of the French, and even in such a war, he hoped no personal animosities would exist between them. It was, therefore, necessary there should be no misunderstanding on a matter of this kind; that there should not be the slightest impression that any officer of high rank had acted in any manner inconsistent with honourable and correct feeling. Now, what was the history of Admiral Elliot's visit to the French dockyards? Admiral Elliot went to Cherbourg, with two friends, in the yacht of one of them, with the intention of paying a visit to the French dockyards. They saw the dockyard of Cherbourg and afterwards that of Brest, by the full permission of the Prefét and authorities. The manner in which they were received showed that there was no idea they came with any purpose the French authorities were not willing to assist them in carrying out. They were shown over the arsenal and works, the French officers affected no concealment; they were proud, and justly so, of the progress they were making in the construction of the iron-plated ships. He should mention that before he left for France Admiral Elliot called on the noble Duke and told him of his intention. He asked the noble Duke if he could be of any use to the Admiralty; if he wished to have anything reported to him. The noble Duke very prudently replied, "You know all that interests us in England, I shall be glad if you can tell us anything the French are doing in which we are interested." After leaving Cherbourg Admiral Elliot went to L'Orient and Rochefort; these establishments he found he could not see without the permission of the French Admiralty. He wrote to Lord Cowley's Secretary, requesting that the permission might be applied for. It was given, and under that official permission he visited those dockyards also. When Admiral Elliot returned to England he told his
982
friends—among them the Duke of Somerset and Sir John Pakington—what he had seen, and, as far as Admiral Elliot was concerned, there the matter ended. "When the noble Duke said he had "published" what he saw he was sure he did not mean all that the scope of the word implied—that he did not mean the statement to be in any way offensive. Now, supposing Admiral Elliot, when at L'Orient and Rochefort, did see a great deal that he was not shown; supposing he saw, by accident, something of great interest, and supposing he has never mentioned what he saw? Did not that prove the character of honesty, and the absence of anything like an intention to be a spy? He could not say that such was the case, but he was bound to say that all Admiral Elliot did see he saw openly and fairly, and under the eyes of the French officers themselves, nor had he revealed to his friends or to the noble Duke anything except what he had seen in such a manner. In the absence of the noble Duke he felt that he ought not to say more, but in saying what he had he thought he had only done his duty to a brother officer in vindicating, not his character, for that required no vindication, but his acts, from the imputation suggested by the large words used the other night by the noble Duke. Admiral Elliot was only travelling for amusement when he visited the dockyards of France, and not in any way as the agent of Government.
THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEregretted that the noble Earl had not felt it consistent with his duty to postpone his statement. The noble Duke at the head of the Admiralty was absent in the performance of his public duties, and, therefore, had either not received the letter which the noble Earl had addressed to him, or had been unable to take advantage of it. He (the Duke of Newcastle) would have felt it his duty to interrupt the noble Earl if he had not begun by stating that he rose to vindicate the character of an absent Friend; but he still thought it would have been better for all parties if the statement had been deferred until to-morrow. That opinion was confirmed by what had fallen from the noble Earl. The Report to which the noble Earl had referred was, no doubt, accurate; but there was no charge conveyed in the observations of the noble Duke affecting Admiral Elliot's honour, although the discretion of that gallant officer in this particular instance was challenged. The noble Duke never used the

983
word "spy," but the noble Earl opposite said he rose to vindicate his friend from the imputation of being a spy. The statement of the noble Duke had been borne out, for it was within his knowledge that the conduct of Admiral Elliot had given offence to the parties concerned in Prance, who felt that his act had been far from friendly. They would have considered it was the duty of Admiral Elliot, as an Englishman, to report to the Admiralty what he had seen; but the gallant Admiral had gone far beyond that. The noble Earl said that Admiral Elliot had not "published" his information; and true it was that he had not published an essay upon the state of the French navy, but he had taken the best possible means of widely publishing his statements. If he had simply made a statement, as he did, to the noble Duke, he would have done his duty; but the gallant Admiral did far more—he not only communicated his statement in conversation to his friends, but he placed it in writing in the hands of a Gentleman who he must have expected and intended would have used the very best mode of publication in the world. A letter in the newspapers might have attracted comparatively little attention, but the debates in the House of Commons on such a subject were sure to be read. If the noble Earl would have condemned the gallant Admiral for publishing his statement, how could he approve his conduct in taking the very best means of making it public? Sir John Pakington had expressly stated in the other House that he made the statement he did upon the authority of Admiral Elliot. He (the Duke of Newcastle) had chiefly risen to explain the cause of his noble Friend's absence, and he could not but repeat his regret that the noble Earl had not deferred his observations until to-morrow.
THE EARL OF HARDWICKEsaid, the course he had taken had arisen entirely from a feeling that the statement put forward by the noble Duke ought as speedily as possible to be explained, especially to our friends on the other side of the water. As to the use made of the gallant Admiral's information, all he need say was that Admiral Elliott and Sir John Pakington were personal friends; that he was justified in communicating what he had seen to his friend, and there, as far as he was concerned, the matter ended. That it was afterwards used in the House of Commons was not his act.

CHIEF JUSTICE MONAHAN.
LORD CHELMSFORD: I wish to call the attention of the noble Earl on the cross benches (the Earl of Leitrim) to the subject of a notice of Motion which he has placed upon the paper, and which stands for this day week. My noble Friend the other evening, without any previous notice, made several remarks upon the conduct of Chief Justice Monahan in reference to certain proceedings at the last summer assizes for the county of Donegal. My noble Friend the Lord Chancellor instantly rose and protested in very strong terms against the course taken by my noble Friend in preferring accusations without notice, and, consequently, without the opportunity of an answer being given. The noble Earl then said he would place a notice upon the paper, which would enable us to discuss the whole question; and, in pursuance of that promise, he did put down the notice which now appears upon the paper—that he would move for the return of certain presentments. My noble Friend the Lord Chancellor immediately said that such a notice did not at all advance the matter, as it gave no intimation of the nature of the charges which were intended to be preferred. I then understood my noble Friend to say that he would shape his Motion in such a way as to satisfy the friends of the Chief Justice. My noble Friend did me the honour at the time to communicate to me the particular grounds upon which he should bring under our notice the conduct of Chief Justice Monahan. I immediately expressed my opinion that there hardly appeared to be sufficient grounds to warrant such a serious step, and I said that I thought that the conduct of Judges ought not to be arraigned unless there was some specific charge of corruption, partiality, or other gross misconduct, which all persons would admit to deserve serious reprehension. I have reflected on the matter since, and I find my first impression to be the correct one. I have been struck with the inconvenience of bringing forward complaints against a Judge without the existence of serious charges. To the Judge such a course would be prejudicial, for, even if he satisfactorily answers the complaint, still the fact of the charge having been raised will be remembered against him. It will also operate extremely prejudicially for the public interest, in the administration of justice, if every Judge is to be liable to censure in Parliament upon all occasions.

985
Under these circumstances I have communicated my opinion to my noble Friend, and I hope that he will be good enough to listen to my recommendation and withdraw his Motion, which can be attended by no beneficial result, but which may prove very prejudicial for the public interest.
THE EARL OF LEITRIM: My Lords, no Member of this House is more desirous to support the authority of the judicial bench than I am; and it was with sincere pain that I made the observations which I did the other evening with respect to Chief Justice Monahan. I felt strongly that what had taken place had caused much uneasiness in the locality concerned, and I did not intend to comment on the circumstances more warmly than I thought absolutely necessary. The noble and learned Lord on the woolsack having complained that no notice had been given, so as to enable an answer to be prepared to my animadversions, my object in giving my Notice of Motion was to afford such an opportunity. I have, however, no desire to go on with any discussion which your Lordships may think would be prejudicial to the public interests, and I, therefore, feel great pleasure in adopting the suggestion of my noble and learned Friend.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Am I to understand that the noble Earl withdraws his charges? If he does so I am contented, and do not wish to say anything more on this subject. But, unless he withdraws his charges, I must request him to proceed and state them.
THE EARL OF LEITRIM: I cannot retract a single syllable of what I said. What the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack wishes me to do is quite impossible.
VISCOUNT LIFFORDwas understood to say that charges of this kind were not considered in Ireland to be of that serious character that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack took them to be. The wisest course would now be to allow it at once to drop.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I say that most serious charges were brought against Chief Justice Monahan; for if a Judge betrays his duty and makes himself a political partisan by delivering a party charge to the grand jury I think he is guilty of gross misconduct.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: I think the observations with which my
986
noble and learned Friend opened this discussion were in singular taste and discretion, and that my noble Friend on the cross bench followed those observations by gracefully withdrawing his notice of Motion. There the matter might have ended satisfactorily to all parties; and I must say I regret the remarks which have since fallen from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack.
EARL GREY: I cannot agree with the expressions of the noble Earl opposite. It seems to me that nothing can be more unsatisfactory than that a most serious charge should be incidentally thrown out against a Judge, and that, when objection is taken to going on with that charge without notice, notice of Motion should be given, and that then that notice should be withdrawn, unaccompanied by any withdrawal of the charge itself. I put myself in the position of Chief Justice Monahan. If I were accused of abusing my position as a Judge by delivering a partizan charge, and such an accusation were formally preferred against me in this House, I should desire either that my friends should have an opportunity of meeting it, or that it should be distinctly withdrawn. Therefore, I entirely concur with my noble and learned Friend on the woolsack that one of two courses, and one only, ought to be taken by the noble Lord on the cross bench. He ought either distinctly to say that there is no ground for any imputation on the conduct of Chief Justice Monahan, or else to state publicly in this House the ground on which he condemns that conduct, and so allow those to whom that learned Judge may trust his defence to answer the charge as best they can.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: I am exceedingly sorry to see the noble Earl opposite so unwilling as he appears to be to permit oil to be thrown on the troubled waters. If I also were to place myself in the position of the learned Judge referred to I feel that I should be perfectly satisfied. Of course, the honour of every man must be in his own hands, and he must be the best judge of how it is to be vindicated. But I do not believe I am less particular on that point than other public men, and I have no hesitation in stating that I with very great regret heard the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack use the expression which he did after my noble Friend (the Earl of Leitrim) sat down. My noble Friend was ready

987
to drop the subject, and willing to abandon the charges supposed to have been made. ["No!"] At all events, he said he would not bring them on before your Lordships. And when the noble Earl opposite throws out a taunt respecting accusations I must say I am not aware of any specific accusation having yet been laid upon your Lordships' Table. There was, indeed, a general expression of condemation of a learned Judge's conduct the other night, which I as much regretted to hear as any other of your Lordships; but there was not such a positive and particular charge made as to render it necessary that this House should carry this unfortunate matter further. When my noble and learned Friend (Lord Chelmsford), who is certainly as careful of the character of a Judge as any man, said what he did, and when the noble Earl on the cross bench stated that he would not proceed with or repeat the statements which he made the other evening, I am sorry that anybody possessing so much weight with your Lordships as the noble Earl opposite does, from his great ability and experience, should not have used his influence, as I have already said, to throw oil on the troubled waters.
EARL GREY: My reason for rising was that the noble Earl on the cross bench distinctly stated that he did not retract a single word of what he had said. In my opinion a censure upon a Judge ought not to be lightly pronounced. If pronounced at all, it ought to be done upon grave occasions, and with due notice, so that there might be time to prepare an answer to it; and I cannot but think that under the circumstances a Judge is not placed in a right position if an accuser does not retract his charge as well as withdraw his notice of Motion.
THE EARL OF WICKLOW: As the matter now stands, these charges have been brought forward, but have not been abandoned by the noble Earl on the cross bench, who, in conformity with the desire of his noble and learned Friend (Lord Chelmsford), has merely consented not to proceed further with the subject. As put by the noble and learned Lord on the "Woolsack the case is perfectly just. But, as I perceive we are not likely to have any more upon this question, I feel bound to say that, although I have had no acquaintance whatever with Chief Justice Monahan, I know the sentiments entertained by the Bar generally towards him, and I am sure it is the universal feeling in Ireland that
988
a more upright, more learned, or more impartial Judge never sat on the bench of that country.
LORD LYVEDEN: I agree that the noble and learned Lord who introduced this subject to-night did so with the best possible taste. But he said that none but the gravest charges—for example, the charge of corruption—ought to be brought against the Judges in Parliament. Now, I understood the noble Earl on the cross bench to use the word "corrupt." ["No!"] Certainly, he stated that this Judge had said on the bench what he must have known not to be true. [The Earl of LEITRIM: No!] After the violent expressions in which the noble Earl had indulged it was not sufficient that he should now say he would not persevere with his charges. It was surely incumbent on him to express some regret for the language he had used.
LORD CHELMSFORD: I really did not hear the violent language ascribed to my noble Friend. At the time he was addressing your Lordships I was otherwise engaged. I did not understand that the noble Earl made any specific charge—certainly he made no serious charge—against Chief Justice Monahan. On that I formed the opinion which I expressed, and if your Lordships really think I was wrong in recommending my noble Friend to withdraw his Motion I am sure he will not consider himself bound by anything I have said. Indeed, after the discussion which has just taken place, I will not ask him to follow my advice on the subject, unless he feels that he is entirely justified in doing so.
THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLE: I am sure no one can doubt the spirit in which the noble and learned Lord opposite advised the noble Earl on the cross bench to withdraw his notice; but I cannot help thinking that the suggestion the noble and learned Lord now makes is really the correct one; and upon the whole, unless the noble Earl is prepared to withdraw the charges he made against Chief Justice Monahan on a former occasion, it is most desirable for the character of this House and of an absent Judge that the noble Earl should persevere with his Motion, and bring forward the charge in order that the matter may be discussed and disposed of. It is all very well to talk of throwing oil on the troubled waters, as a noble Lord expressed it, or making things comfortable; but this is not a matter between two sides of the House, or between one

989
noble Lord and another; it has reference to the character of an absent Judge, which is placed in the greatest jeopardy. The noble Earl denies that he used the word "corrupt," and that he ever said the Chief Justice had stated what was not true; but undoubtedly the purport of his charges was that he sitting on the bench had acted as a political partisan; and, as I conceive, a graver charge cannot be made against any Judge. How would that learned Judge stand if the Motion, in the present state of the matter, were not brought forward? The charge would remain. It would be said the noble Earl in his place in Parliament made a grave charge against a learned Judge; but on it being represented to him by the noble and learned Lord opposite that the charge was not sufficiently grave to be brought forward in that House he had withdrawn the Motion. It would be added that the noble Earl did not withdraw the charge, and the House had no opportunity of expressing their opinion upon it. I do hope, therefore, the noble Earl will take one of two courses—either entirely retract the charges he made or persevere with the Motion of which he gave notice.
LORD CRANWORTH: I entirely concur in what has been stated by the noble Duke. The matter must somehow or other be brought before your Lordships; but I appeal to the noble Earl whether common fairness to Chief Justice Monahan does not require that he should shape his Motion in some other terms than those in which it now appears. In its present form it communicates nothing whatever which would enable the learned Judge through his noble and learned Friend on the "Woolsack or any other Peer to make his defence. Surely the notice ought to state distinctly with what the noble Earl charges the Chief Justice.
THE EARL OF EGLINTON: I am sorry, my Lords, to take up your time further on this matter, but this discussion ought not, in my opinion, to end without some expression in regard to Chief Justice Monahan coming from this side of the House. I can only say that from the position I held two years ago in Ireland I naturally came in contact with nearly all the Judges. I was frequently, both in society and on matters of business, brought into contact with Chief Justice Monahan; and I can assure your Lordships that there was no member on the judicial bench of whom I formed a higher opinion. I believe him
990
to be a man of extremely high character and talent, and of the utmost impartiality.
THE EARL OF LEITRIM: I cannot agree to follow the counsel of the noble and learned Lord (Lord Cranworth), nor do I feel in the least called upon to do so. This matter is not without precedent, as has been asserted by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. On the contrary, I find exactly similar charges were made some years ago in the other House of Parliament against an equally learned Judge—the late Baron Smith. Nay, more, I find the name of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack in the list of the majority on a division upon that occasion for an inquiry into that learned Judge's conduct.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I rise to order. There is at present no Question before the House. ["Oh, oh!"] That would be sufficient to stop this discussion from going on. But surely it will be expected by your Lordships that the noble Earl should not proceed to bring forward his charges without any notice whatsoever. I never complained in the slightest degree that he' should bring a charge against a learned Judge. It might be his duty to do so. My complaint was that, without retracting the charge against Chief Justice Monahan, he abandoned his intention of bringing it on for discussion.
LORD CHELMSFORD: I rise to order. When the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack calls my noble Friend to order he is not entitled to make a speech. My noble Friend was not bringing forward the charge against Chief Justice Monahan without notice; he was insinuating something against the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack and the Government with which he was connected on a former occasion.
THE EARL OF LEITRIM: I am entirely in the hands of the House. I am perfectly satisfied with the notice as it stands. I am not prepared to put on the paper a bill of indictment against Chief Justice Monahan. I will not do it. I am not, like some of my advisers, a learned Lord; I am a simple layman; at the same time I have as good a sense of propriety as any noble Lord in the House. I have had occasion to complain, perhaps to the great annoyance of your Lordships, of the manner in which the Government of Ireland is conducted. In presenting a petition from the county of Donegal, I, among other matters, animadverted on the conduct of

991
the Chief Justice; but I did not say that he stated what he knew was untrue. I said what he stated was untrue and that he must have been misinformed; that he must have received, out of court, wrong information. What I complained of was that a Judge should get information on certain matters out of doors and act upon it.
LORD REDESDALE: I really think it most desirable that this matter should end here. The noble Earl, having expressed an opinion with regard to Chief Justice Monahan, gave notice of a Motion on the subject; he is willing to say no more about it, but cannot admit that it was an indiscreet charge. A very high opinion has been expressed of Chief Justice Monahan; and he may well rest satisfied with that expression of opinion on both sides of the House—quite as well as if the charge had been discussed; and as the noble Earl is willing not to carry the matter further I really think it should be allowed now to drop.
LORD BROUGHAM: Whatever the noble Earl on the cross benches may say in words, of his refusing to retract what he before said, I consider that in substance and effect the charges against Chief Justice Monahan were withdrawn when the noble Earl consented to abandon his Motion.

TICKETS OF LEAVE—CASE OF MICHAEL GARDINER.

  MOTION FOR CORRESPONDENCE.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREmoved for Correspondence respecting the granting of a Ticket-of-Leave to Michael Gardiner, a Convict, who pleaded guilty at the Spring Assizes for the County of Roscommon in 1849 to an Indictment for Conspiracy to murder Major Denis Mahon. The noble Earl said it would be in the recollection of their Lordships that in 1847 the south west of Ireland was in a very disturbed state, and that several magistrates and others were shot at, and attempts were made against the lives of a number of persons. Major Denis Mahon, one of the principal landowners in the county of Roscommon, was shot dead a short distance from his own residence. For this murder three persons were arrested, and tried at the Summer Assizes of 1848. One was convicted and hanged; a second escaped conviction, the jury having, through terrorism, disagreed; and the third, Michael Gardiner, who was indicted not for the murder but for conspiracy to murder, and who, in fact, plotted the whole affair, and
  992
  employed the actual murderers, offered to plead guilty if his life was spared. In 1848 there were sixty-six prisoners for trial in the county of Roscommon,' of whom four were for murder and nineteen for conspiracy to murder. In the following year, to show that crime had not decreased, there were ninety-seven prisoners, of whom nine were charged with murder and fourteen with conspiracy to murder. In the case of the murder of Major Mahon the prisoners refused to join in their panel. The man who fired the fatal shot was executed. The second was discharged, because, although he was assured by a gentleman who was present that the evidence was perfectly clear, the jury dared not agree upon a verdict. Gardiner was then put upon his trial, and offered to plead "Guilty," provided he were assured that his life would be spared. Mr. Monahan was at the time the law officer of the Crown, but it was not until subsequently, when Mr. Hatchel filled that position, that the plea was finally accepted. The result of its acceptance was that Michael Gardiner had sentence of death recorded against him—a sentence which, however, was afterwards commuted into transportation for life. He could not say in what prison the offender had, since 1849, the period of his conviction, been confined by the authorities; but in the month of March in the present year, to the great surprise of the magistrates and people of Roscommon, he received a ticket-of-leave, and was allowed to walk back to the scene of his crime, and, so to speak, to walk over the grave of his victim. It might be said he had behaved well in prison, and that according to the rules acted upon by the governors of our convict establishments he was entitled to the ticket-of-leave which he had obtained; but the simple answer to such an argument was that the sooner rules which admitted of such occurrences as that to which he was alluding were changed the better. He might add that it had been proved in evidence that Gardiner was actually the man who had loaded the gun with which the murder in question had been committed—and some explanation was, under those circumstances, he thought, due from the Government, why it was he had been set at liberty? It was but right that he should also state that Gardiner, having gone back to his former haunts, had, he believed, some time ago betaken himself to Manchester, which was the head quarters of the Ribbon Societies

  993
  of the United Kingdom, it might be there to receive instructions as to how he should proceed in carrying out the principles to which, before his imprisonment, he had been shown to be attached. He should simply say, in conclusion, that he hoped the Government would take the matter into their serious consideration.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, he did not wish to make a single observation in opposition to that revision of the rules of our convict prison which the noble Earl had suggested, but must assure him that so long as those rules remained as they were, the confinement of Gardiner could not with propriety have been continued beyond the period at which his ticket-of-leave had been granted. Although, he might observe, the noble Earl had given notice that he intended to make a Motion on the subject, he yet had not formally done so, and, indeed, there was no correspondence whatsoever bearing upon the point at issue, which, if ordered, could be produced. He might further observe, that as he understood the rules relating to the carrying out of our convict system, prior to the final abolition of transportation in 1857, it was an established regulation that a criminal who was sentenced to transportation for life, and was retained in this country, should be discharged on licence at the expiration of ten years from the time of his conviction, unless during the time of his imprisonment, he should have been proved to have been guilty of any misconduct justifying his further confinement. When transportation was abolished and penal servitude instituted in its stead, it had been found necessary to revise that rule; and proceeding analogically, it had been laid down that any convict sentenced to penal servitude for life should be kept in custody for a period of twelve years, with the same proviso as had previously existed with reference to transportion for life. But to advert to the case immediately under the notice of the House, he should remind the noble Earl he had omitted to mention that another man named Michael Brennan had pleaded "Guilty" on the same occasion as Gardiner to the same offence, had precisely the same sentence pronounced upon him, but had that sentence remitted by the law officers of the day, after having undergone an imprisonment of only two or three years, upon the ground that the evidence against him was much less clear than that against Gardiner. He had explained how
  994
  the rules with respect to convict prisons had been changed in 1857; but Michael Gardiner was convicted under the old law, and his sentence was commuted to transportation for life. Therefore, he would have been entitled to claim his discharge on licence at the expiration of ten years; but it was felt that his case was so bad that it was requisite to carry the rules to the utmost extent that was permissable, and, therefore, Michael Gardiner was detained for twelve years, and was not discharged before March of the present year. Consequently the noble Earl would see that however much the rules might require modification, no undue leniency had been exhibited towards Michael Gardiner, but that the full punishment was carried into execution. The noble Earl had stated that Michael Gardiner had been very recently walking about Stroke's Town. He (the Duke of Newcastle) was not aware that that was the case, but he was glad that the noble Earl was aware that the man was no longer in that neighbourhood, and had removed to Manchester. He was acquainted with the name of the street and the number of the house where the returned convict was residing. He could not say whether the man had gone to that town for the bad motives glanced at by the noble Earl, or from a desire to get out of a neighbourhood, a stay in which ought, from reminiscences, to be so horrible to his feelings; but the noble Earl would admit that the Government could have taken, according to the usual rules, no other course than that which had been adopted, though it might be a question whether the rules should not have more elasticity than at present.
  THE EARL OF EGLINTONbelieved that the convict system in Ireland worked generally in a most excellent manner, but he was convinced, from the explanation given and from his own experience, that in this instance nobody was to blame and that the system alone was in fault. He also quite concurred in the hope that that system would be so far changed as to prevent such gross cases as that now brought before their Lordships' notice. He thought that a man condemned to penal servitude for murder for life should be placed apart from his fellow beings for the rest of his life. He was induced to intrude now upon their Lordships' attention in consequence of a case which occurred while he was in Ireland. In an island near Dublin, called Ireland's Eye, a man named Kirwan mur-

  995
  dered his wife in a most dreadful manner, and upon circumstantial evidence he was convicted and sentenced to death. A memorial, as was usual in all such cases, for a remission of the sentence was presented to him, and to his surprise the memorial was supported by the opinion of the two presiding Judges—Mr. Justice Crampton and Mr. Baron Greene, Judges of the highest character—on the plea that evidence had since come to light which ought to have been brought forward at the trial, and which might have saved the man from conviction. His own impression was that the man, if innocent, ought to be pardoned altogether, and, if not, that the extreme penalty of the law should be inflicted; but, of course, where the two Judges recommended a commutation of the sentence, he could hardly, on his own responsibility, order the man for execution. He felt so strongly on-the subject, however, that he laid the case before the then Lord Chancellor, with the intention of being guided by his decision. The Lord Chancellor concurred with the Judges, and the sentence was accordingly commuted. He nest heard of this dreadful murderer in the following way:—When he was again in Ireland, in 1858, the man's name appeared in a batch with others which were submitted to him with the view of recommending their return from Bermuda. He, however, refused to recommend the return of Kirwan, and he thought he was justified in that course. He was glad to have the opportunity of clearing himself from the imputation of having done, on his own responsibility, that which he felt at the time to be wrong, and of pointing out the possibility of the worst of murderers being brought back upon society under the present system.
  THE EARL OF LEITRIMsaid, that with the present system of Government in Ireland it was almost impossible to preserve the peace of the country. With regard to tickets of leave, he thought that, if given at all, they should only allow the holders to go beyond the confines of the kingdom; least of all should men who had been convicted of the grossest crimes be allowed to allowed to return to the place where they had committed those crimes.
  VISCOUNT DUNGANNONexpressed the satisfaction with which he had listened to the explanation given by the noble Earl (the Earl of Eglinton) respecting the case of Kirwan, and he believed this explanation would give equal satisfaction in
  996
  Ireland. He had heard with surprise that a ticket of leave had been given to a person who had been convicted, at least, of a conspiracy to murder, and that he should be permitted again to revisit the scene of his former crime and perhaps, as had been forcibly said, to walk over the very grave of his victim. He thought that the release of a man who had committed an offence so closely allied to murder was inconsistent with the safety of human life throughout the country.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORwas also shocked that under any system a person convicted of murder, but whose sentence of transportation had been commuted, could, after the lapse of a few years, revisit the scene of his crime. He heartily concurred in the disapproval which had been expressed with regard to such a system, and he would undertake, with the assistance of the Home Secretary and of the Under Secretary of State (Mr. Waddington), to revise that system, and see whether such an abuse could not be put an end to.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREexpressed his acknowledgments for the assurance given by the noble and learned Lord, and said he was quite satisfied with the result of the discussion which had been elicited.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, he appeared to have been misunderstood both by the Lord Chancellor and the noble Lord. What he was explaining was the rule as to convicts in Ireland. The rule as to ten and twelve years' convicts in England was quite different.
  House adjourned at Half-past Seven o'clock, 'till To-morrow, Half-past Ten o'clock.