Sitting of 27 June 1861

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2° Public Houses (Scotland) Acts Amendment; Metropolitan Police Force Pensions; Government of the Navy.
3° Courts of Justice Building; Piers and Harbours.

THE CENSUS IN IRELAND.

  QUESTION.
  SIR FREDERICK HEYGATEsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If an unrevised Report of the result of the Census in Ireland, similar to that lately furnished for England and Wales, will be presented to the House; and, if so, how soon it may be expected?
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, he had been informed by the Irish Census Commissioners that about the middle of July he would be able to lay a Return on the Table relative to the Census in Ireland. That Return would be a revised one, and would differ from the Census of this country, inasmuch as it would show the religious denominations into which the people were divided.

OFFICERS OF THE INDIAN NAVY.

  QUESTION.
  VISCOUNT VALLETORTsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether any measures are to be
  1644
  taken, as Formerly recommended by Lord Elphinstone, for improving the position of Officers in the Indian Navy, as regarded retirement and allowances; and, if so, what is likely to be the nature of them?
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, the recommendations of Lord Elphinstone as to the improvement of the Officers of the Indian Navy, together with other questions concerning that Navy, were under the consideration of the Indian Government, and that no decision had as yet been taken regarding them.

CASUAL POOR.—QUESTION.
VISCOUNT RAYNHAMsaid, he wished to ask the President of the Poor Law Board, Whether the authorities of workhouses are not bound by law to admit at all times all persons who apply to them for admission, and, therefore, if, on the application of any person for admission into any workhouse, the portion of that establishment usually allotted to the casual poor should happen to be filled, the person in charge of such establishment is not compelled to find for the applicant accommodation in some other part of the premises, or a free lodging elsewhere, and whether it is lawful for the authorities of workhouses to place persons admitted in a clean condition in the same room with those who are not? He asked the question in consequence of poor persons having been frequently refused admission, and also on account of the bad accommodation provided.
MR. C. P. VILLIERSstated that, according to his apprehension of the law, the officials of workhouses were bound to admit all persons who had an order from the competent authorities, namely, Boards of Guardians, Relieving Officers, and Overseers; in cases of necessity they were bound to admit them even without orders, and if the House was full the Master was bound to refer the applicant to the Relieving Officer, whose duty it was to find relief in other quarters. With reference to putting persons in a clean condition into the same room with persons who were not clean, he had to state that all persons admitted to the workhouses were washed and cleansed before entering them, and were bound to be kept so while there.

CONVICT ESTABLISHMENT IN IRELAND.

  QUESTION.
  LORD NAASsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether

  1645
  Captain Crofton has intimated to the Government that, in his opinion, great difficulties will arise in carrying on the business of the Irish Convict Department owing to the reduction that has lately been made in the Dumber of the Directors of the Convict Prisons; and whether Captain Crofton has, in consequence, announced his intention of retiring from the Service?
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, that on the occurrence of a recent Vacancy it was thought right to ascertain by experience whether it was necessary to fill it up of not, and the Government intimated their intention to that effect. It was true that Captain Crofton had expressed himself to the Irish Government in the manner stated in the question of his noble Friend. A temporary arrangement had been made by which the local inspector of the department would be relieved from a part of his duties by a removal of a portion of the convicts to another place. He could assure his noble Friend that while the Government were anxious to make the most economical arrangements, they had no intention to interfere with the efficiency of the convict department. It was not true that Captain Crofton had resigned; but he had intimated an apprehension that he might be compelled to resign on account of the state of his health. He trusted that necessity would not arise, and that Captain Crofton would continue, as heretofore, to discharge his duties in connection with the Convict Department.

AFFAIRS OF NEW GRANADA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. H. BERKELEYsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affaire, Whether Her Majesty's Government recognize a Notification issued by Senor Martin, Minister Plenipotentiary to this Court from the Granadian Confederation, better known as the Republic of New Granada, Which announces a blockade of the Ports of Rio Hache, Santa Martha, Sa-vanilla,' Carthagena, and Zapote; and What Government does Her Majesty's Government recognize in the so-called Granadian Confederation?
  LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, the question was one of great importance. The Government of New Granada had announced, not a blockade, but that certain ports of New Granada were to be closed. Now, the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, after taking legal advice upon the question, was that it was perfectly
  1646
  competent to a Government of a country in a state of tranquillity to say which ports should be open to trade and which should be closed. But in the event of insurrection or civil war in that country it was not competent for its Government to close ports which were de facto in the hands of the insurgents; and that such a proceeding would be an invasion of the international law relating to blockade. Admiral Milne, acting under the advice of Her Majesty's Government, had ordered the commanders of Her Majesty's ships not to recognize the closing of those ports. He would answer the other portion of the hon. Gentleman's inquiry upon another day.

SOUTH KENSINGTON MUSEUM.

  EXPLANATION.
  MR. LOWEsaid, that, in answering a question put the other evening relative to the South Kensington Museum by the noble Lord the Member for Herefordshire (Lord W. Graham), he had quoted what he believed to be a paragraph from the Report of the Committee of last Session. Since then the noble Lord had put a notice on the paper that he would ask—
  "Whether he (Mr. Lowe) is aware that the paragraph which he quoted as from the Report of the Committee on the South Kensington Museum with respect to Captain Fowke's Plan was taken from the Draft Report drawn up by himself, which paragraph was considerably altered, ourtailed, and amended in the Report adopted by the Committee."
  It was only after seeing that notice he was made aware that he had committed an error, and that he bad read a paragraph from a Draft Report instead of from the Report adopted by the Committee. The paragraphs began in the same way, and he was thus led into the error, for which he would now beg to apologize. He would now read the paragraph which he intended to have read before. They were substantially to the same effect, the only difference being the omission by the Committee of some words laudatory of Captain Fowke's plan. The paragraph he meant to read was—
  "Your Committee are by no means anxious to involve the revenue in large expenses for mere ornament. The Museum is yet in course of formation, and they think it unwise to commit the country to a heavy expense in anticipation of its wants. The Committee recommend that any plan which may be adopted for the buildings to be erected should be capable of being worked into a general plan which would at once fully occupy the ground, and be susceptible of a proper amount of decoration. Such a plan has been laid before the Committee by Captain Fowke."

THE FIRE IN TOOLEY STREET.

  QUESTION.
  MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he proposes making inquiry into the circumstances attending the commencement of the recent Fire in Tooley Street, with a view of ascertaining whether there was a sufficient supply of water in the mains of the Company supplying the district?
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that in consequence of the notice given by his hon. Friend, he had applied to the Commissioners of Police, and the information which had been obtained from the Superintendent of Police who was on the spot at the time of this disastrous fire, was, that there was not a sufficient supply of water when the engines first arrived. He did not think that any additional inquiry was likely to throw further light on the subject.

OFFICERS OF THE INDIAN NAVY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. ANGERSTEINsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, In what position Officers of the Indian Navy will in future be placed by the transfer of the Government of India to the Crown?
  SIR CHARLES WOODwas understood to say that the position of those Officers had not been altered by the change of Government alluded to.

ADMISSION TO SANDHURST AND WOOLWICH.—QUESTION.
MR. BUTLER JOHNSTONEsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, How many Candidates are on the list for admission to Sandhurst and Woolwich at the present time; also the average number of direct Commissions from each College annually for the last five years?
MR. T. G. BARINGsaid, the number of Candidates for admission to Sandhurst was 164, and for Woolwich 266. The number of Commissions from Sandhurst during the last five years was thirty-four upon the average of each year, and from Woolwich eighty, of which number fifty were to the Artillery and thirty to the Engineers.

THE GREAT EASTERN STEAM SHIP.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BRISTOWsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, To state the date of the Instructions to the Admi-
  1648
  ralty Surveyor to inspect and report upon the Great Eastern Steam Vessel, and the date of the Surveyor's Report in consequence of such Instructions; and whether there will be any objection to laying the Report of the Admiralty Surveyor as to the Vessel upon the Table of the House?
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that the Admiralty Surveyor was instructed to inspect and report upon the Great Eastern Steam Vessel on the 10th of June, and his survey was dated the 13th of June. It was not usual for similar Reports to be made public for many reasons; but as great interest was felt in this ship he should not offer any objection to the Surveyor's Report being laid upon the Table if the lion. Gentleman moved for it. It would be found to be very satisfactory.

FISHERIES IN IRELAND.—QUESTION.
MR. GARNETTsaid, he rose to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether the Commissioners of Fisheries in Ireland have sent in their Report for the year 1860; and if not, what is the reason of the delay, and when it will be laid upon the Table of the House?
MR. CARDWELLsaid, that the Commissioners of Fisheries in Ireland had sent in their Report for the previous year. It was in type, and would very shortly be laid upon the Table. He would endeavour to have it laid before the Select Committee on Monday.

EAST INDIA COUNCIL, &c, BILL. CONSIDERATION.
Order for Consideration read.
Clause 3 (Composition of the Council of the Governor General of India),
MR. DANBY SEYMOURmoved to leave out the words "there shall be" and insert "it shall be lawful to appoint." The effect of his Amendment would be to make permissive instead of compulsory the appointment of the full number of the Council.
Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 27, to leave out the words "there shall be," and insert the words "it shall be lawful to appoint"—instead thereof—
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, that the question had been already discussed and decided in Committee. Experience had shown that five Members were little enough to carry on the business of the Council.
MR. H. BAILLIEsaid, that although the present Secretary for India might think five Members necessary his successor might

1649
be of a different opinion. Yet as the clause stood he would not hare the power of suspending the appointment.
Question put, "That the words 'there shall be' stand part of the Bill."
The House divided:—Ayes 155; Noes 60: Majority 95.
SIR CHARLES WOODproposed to insert words providing that one Member of the Council should be a barrister of not less than fire years' standing.
Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 37, after the word "two," to insert the words "one of whom shall be a Barrister or a Member of the Faculty of Advocates in Scotland of not less than five years' standing."
MR. LAYARDconsidered that five years' standing was too short a period to entitle a man to be sent to India as a Member of the Council, and moved an Amendment that "ten years" should be inserted instead of "five years."
Amendment proposed to said proposed Amendment, to leave out the word "five," and insert the word "ten," instead thereof—
MR. VANSITTARTsupported the Amendment. The Judges of County Courts were required to be of seven years standing, and he thought that, compared with their duties, the functions which the legal Member of the Council would be called upon to discharge were very important, and that, therefore, a standing of five years was too brief a qualification.
SIR CHARLES WOODobserved that the proposition he made was in accordance with the practice in respect to legal appointments in India.
MR. J. B. SMITHsaid, that the legal Member of the Governor's Council would have to superintend all the cases brought up from the different Legislatures of the respective Presidencies, and a standing of five years would hardly afford a sufficient security that the person appointed as legal Member was properly conversant with the duties required.
COLONEL SYKESremarked that a barrister of five years' standing might never have held a brief in his life, and yet it was proposed to make him qualified to hold one of the highest offices in the State with a salary of £8,000 a year.
SIR MINTO FARQUHARsupported the Amendment.
MR. PULLERstated that a barrister of five years' standing, though without practice in the Courts, might have had a great
1650
deal of practice in special pleading; and it would be better to leave it to the responsibility of the Secretary of State for India to select a proper person to fill the office.
MR. WHITEthought it better not to insert either five or ten years' standing, but to leave it to the discretion of the Government to appoint the fittest person.
SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEconcurred in that suggestion. The legal Member of the Council would have peculiar duties to perform, and a practising barrister would not be better qualified than a person whose studies had been in a direction to fit him for the office.
MR. DISRAELIwas of opinion that, after all, the best security for the appointment of a person duly qualified for the performance of his duties, under the circumstances of the case, was to be found in the confidence which was to be reposed in the Government for the time being. It was easy to conceive that a man might be found young in years and standing, but very wise in experience, whom it might be desirable to send to India under the operation of the clause under discussion; and the Government, he contended, would be sufficiently controlled in the exercise of their power in making those appointments by the force of public opinion, as expressed in that House. For his own part, he should strongly advise the Government to avoid any definition of time in the clause, and simply confine its wording to the profession to which the proposed Member of the Council should belong.
MR. DANBY SEYMOURsaid, that the principle of limitation was followed in the case of the Civil Service, and he did not see why an exception to that rule should be made in the present instance. Either the Government ought to be left unfettered altogether, or the provisions of the Bill should be consistent with one another. In restricting the choice of the Government, the only object was to secure that the appointments should be given to the man best legally qualified to fill it, instead of to some mere follower of the Government whom it was desired to provide for. He would support the Amendment.
MR. LAYARDsaid, if no test of the kind was necessary with regard to legal acquirements, why the restriction of ten years in the case of the civil element of the Council?
MR. MALINSsaid, the insertion of a fire years' standing was intended to secure that the appointee should be possessed of

1651
something like legal qualifications. Experience, in such cases as that under consideration, was of as much value as ability; and he thought an experience of ten years was not too much to call for; and, therefore, he should vote for the Amendment, or even for some intermediate period, rather than for the five years, as inserted in the clause.
SIR GEORGE LEWISthought that a certain amount of fallacy lurked in the word "experience." Suppose, for instance, a barrister happened to have had an experience of five years at Nisi Prius or the Old Bailey, could that fact, he should like to know, be fairly held to qualify him for the position of a Member of the Legislative Council? It Was quite clear that for such a position experience was not the quality required—what was required was the qualifications of a jurist. In the case of the Civil Service the experience required was appropriate to the duties to be performed, and what it was desirable to have under the operation of the present clause was a gentleman of high legal attainments, which he contended might be found in a barrister of five years' standing. Indeed, according to the existing law, the Chief Justices of the three Presidencies were only required to be of five years' standing; He might further observe that if the Government were disposed to make an improper appointment, they would have means of doing so by the selection of a barrister who had been ten as well as of one who had been only five years at the Bar. Indeed, it was probable that a larger number of incompetent persons would be found in the former class, which would in all probability comprise a greater number of men who had failed in their profession.
MR. VINCENT SCULLYmaintained that the person appointed under the clause should be not only a barrister but a barrister of ten years' standing. If the Government were left unfettered in the matter, it was, he thought, quite possible that the Minister for India might discover more intelligence in a nephew or other relative than in all the rest of Her Majesty's subjects.
MR. LOCKEsaid, it appeared to him that the choice of the Government was sufficiently fettered by requiring a qualification of five years' standing. All that was wanted was to prove that a man was bonâ fide a barrister, and a qualification of five years would establish that as readily as one of tea years.
Amendment agreed to.
Question put, "That the word 'five' stand part of the said proposed Amendment.
The House divided:—Ayes 132; Noes 73: Majority 59.
Question, "That the words 'one of whom shall be a Barrister or a Member of the Faculty of Advocates in Scotland of not leas than five years' standing' be inserted after the word 'two,' in page 2, line 37," put, and agreed to.
Clause 19 (Governor General to make Rules for Conduct of Business at such Meetings),
SIR CHARLES WOODproposed after the word "meetings" to leave out "and from time to time to alter such rules" and insert "but such rules maybe subsequently amended at meetings for the purpose of making laws and regulations, subject to the assent of the Governor General." The object of the alteration was, he said, to place the Council of the Governor General in exactly the same position as the Councils of the Presidencies, in regard to the framing of regulations.
MR. J. B. SMITHthought that the Council should have the power of making their own laws and regulations in the first instance, subject to the approval of the Governor General.
MR. DANBY SEYMOURwished to know whether, under the Amendment, the Council would be able to discuss a Motion to ask the Governor General to amend the rules?
SIR CHARLES WOOD: Certainly.
COLONEL SYKESunderstood that the Governor General was to have the right of veto in regard to the regulations framed by the Council.
Amendment agreed to; other Amendments made.
Bill to be read 3° To-morrow.

EAST INDIA (CIVIL SERVICE) BILL. COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read,
MR. H. BAILLIEsaid, the main object of the Bill was to destroy the exclusive privileges hitherto enjoyed by the Covenanted Civil Servants of India. What was the object of Parliament originally in constituting the covenanted service? It was twofold—first to secure a body of well-educated and efficient public servants in India; and secondly to prevent the patronage of India from falling into the hands of the Crown. There was no doubt that it was admitted by Parliament in former days to be of essential importance to prevent

1653
this patronage from falling into the hands of the Crown, because it was supposed that it might lead to political jobbing and Parliamentary corruption, He did not know Whether they were less liable to those vices in these days, but there had been a great change in the opinion of Parliament upon this subject, and the great object of Government and Parliament at this day seemed to be to grasp at all the patronage of India, and take the whole of it into the hands of the Crown. Last year a Bill was passed for the purpose of amalgamating the Royal and the Indian armies. In a military point of view that might be a necessary measure, but the result had been that the whole patronage of the Indian army had been placed in the hands of the Crown. He did not mean to say that that patronage was likely to be abused as long as a Royal Prince who was not a political partisan, and who had he object to gain by political jobbing, was at the head of the army: but as regarded the navy, the patronage in that service had been prostituted for political purposes for many years past. If any person entertained any doubt upon the matter, he had only to take up the Navy List, and lie would find that nine-tenths of the Admirals, post-captains, and commanders, were members or connections of the great families. ["Oh, oh!"] He ventured to say that was the Case. He did not attach blame to any Government, but to the system that prevailed. How would this apply to the present Bill as regarded the Civil Service? When the two Services were originally established by Parliament in India the patronage of the covenanted Service was given to the Court of Directors, and that of the uncovenanted Service to the Governor General, because it was understood that it was to be confined to the Natives of India. But a succession of Governor Generals had in process of time, appropriated the best places in that service to Europeans. The mode in which that was done was that young men were sent out from this country to India, with recommendations to officers in high positions in India or to the Governor General himself, and they were at once appointed into the uncovenanted Service. This Bill proposed to give to the Governor General the power of transferring these young men to the covenanted Service. Now Parliament, in deciding a few years ago that the covenanted Service should be filled only by persons passing a competitive examination in this country, had given those appoint-
1654
ments to the public. But if this Bill passed, the effect would be to deprive the young men in this country of the positions which they would have been entitled to, and for which for many years, perhaps, they might been devoting themselves to study in order to qualify themselves. He knew of no mode by which such an abuse Could be prevented, unless by introducing a clause to confine the uncovenanted Service to the Natives of India. If such a clause as that were introduced he should offer no further opposition to the Bill.
MR. ASTELLsaid, that when the Secretary of State for India introduced these Bills he understood him to state that they had the general concurrence of the Council of India. He believed that that statement was not entirely correct, and he challenged the right hon. Baronet to state honestly and conscientiously whether he believed that, if the Members of the Council of India had an opportunity of recording their opinions upon the Bill now before the House, those observations would be borne out by them. Last year the right hon. Baronet proposed to his Council to bring into Parliament a Bill very similar to this one, but so far from the Council being favourable to the measure it was opposed by the majority of the Council, and was not introduced. Several members of the Indian Council (which it should be remembered consisted of only fifteen members altogether) expressed their dissent from the Bill; among others, Sir John Lawrence, whose name was a tower of strength on Indian affairs. Colonel Durand's dissent was, perhaps, the strongest of all for he stated that he was only allowed about five minutes to look at the Bill: and the right hon. Gentleman treated the House in much the same way. Instead of having considerable difficulty in getting these minutes of the Council of India, it ought to be a Standing Order that whenever dissents were expressed they should be laid on the Table with the Bill, in order that the House might have an opportunity of giving its decision with all the facts before it. Was the right hon. Gentleman ashamed of consulting the able men who sat at his Council? In the first instance there was a majority against the Bill, no less than eight Members of the Council having opposed it; subsequently some of the Members became reconciled to the measure, though it was in nearly all respects the same. He warned the House against passing this Bill, which he be-

1655
lieved to be fraught with injury to the country.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, the Judges and collectors who were appointed in India to the control of districts larger than German principalities had all passed through a course of elaborate instruction in the college of Haileybury. During the last thirty or forty years men of very eminent abilities had been produced under that system, the tests to which they were subjected being of a very severe character. But under this Bill he could not perceive any guarantee that the persons to be appointed would continue to be men of equal acquirements, or even to possess a liberal education. The second clause empowered the Governor General to appoint any one who had merely been seven years in India and could pass an examination in the languages. But a residence of seven years, and a knowledge of the languages, did not constitute the qualifications that would enable a man to perform the functions of a Judge and collector; the first must have a good knowledge of Hindoo and Mahommedan law, and the second have a practical knowledge of revenue systems, and both must be well read in the acts and regulations of the Government. It was true that the appointment was subject to the approval of the Home Government; but when was it likely that the Home Council would reverse a selection made by the Governor General? The Bill also affected the rights of a class of qualified Natives of India, who for twenty-five years had administered the civil law. The principal Sudder Ameens, the Sudder Ameens, and the Moonsiffs, underwent a rigid examination before they were appointed to their respective offices, and he (Colonel Sykes) could state from digests which he had published from official Returns of the administration of civil justice for twelve successive years in the three governments of India that these functionaries had decided 97 to 99 per cent out of every 100 cases with few appeals. Of the first class there were 64, of the second 81, and of the third—corresponding to the Judges of our small-cause courts—there were 493. These were Native gentlemen who had qualified themselves to administer the civil law in India, and their decisions gave universal satisfaction. What he feared was that the places of these men would be sought by English barristers of five years' standing, who would be glad to take them with the prospect of being afterwards promoted
1656
to judgeships. His right hon. Friend must be aware that the substitutions of English barristers for Native Judges must be at an enormously increased cost. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would take steps to provide that whoever was appointed should be subjected to the same intellectual and practical tests which had hitherto been adopted. The Indian Government had the merit of precedence over the English Government in having been the first to establish county courts, also to impose a test of the capabilities of pleaders, and in fixing the maximum cost of suits.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, that one point in regard to this Bill seemed to have been overlooked. When Parliament took upon itself the government of India, it declared that all the contracts and liabilities entered into by the East India Company should be binding on the Crown. Now, it was a matter of great doubt among the Civil Servants of the late East India Company how far this Bill, if it became law, would affect them in respect to their Civil Service fund and their Annuity fund. These funds were maintained half by support from the State, and half by a per centage from the salaries. It was clear that if the number of covenanted Civil Servants was limited a blow was struck at the very root of these funds. He, therefore, wished to have from the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles Wood) a clear statement of how he proposed to treat this question? Parliament was pledged to support the funds, and it ought to take care that neither the servants nor their wives and families suffered from the passing of the Bill.
MR. ADAMsaid, that the more he considered the subject the more he deprecated the course which Parliament was pursuing in regard to legislation for India. He thought it a great misfortune that the direct government of our Eastern Empire had been transferred to the Crown; and also that Parliament should have excluded from its benches Members of the Council. It seemed to him that in doing so it had, as it were, knocked out its own brains as regarded Indian legislation. But if it was not to have the assistance of gentlemen in this country—of gentlemen who had experience in Indian legislation and Indian affairs—it appeared to him most important that the House should be supplied with all the information that could be furnished it, and amongst these he considered the dissents of the Council held an impor-

1657
tant place. The right hon. Gentleman had quoted a very valuable saying of Mountstuart Elphinstone, namely, that legislation for India should be Blow, gradual, and well considered. But would any hon. Gentleman say that those epithets could be applied to the Bill before the House?
SIR MINTO FARQUHARsubmitted that hon. Members had not yet had time to read the papers which had been distributed to them, and the attentive perusal of which was necessary before they proceeded to the details of this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman might tell them that they had notice of the measure last Session; but the House would remember that several eminent authorities had expressed their dissent to the Bill of last year. It was now stated that Colonel Durand and Mr. Mills had modified their dissent in favour of this Bill; but had Mr. M'Naghten, Mr. Mangles, Sir John Lawrence, and Sir Henry Montgomery done so? If that had been the case the fact would certainly have been stated. He asked whether it was right that so little weight should be given to the opinion of Members in Council for India? He bad said on a previous occasion, and the more he considered the subject the more he felt that unless important Amendments were made in this Bill great reluctance would be shown on the part of candidates to enter into competition for the Indian Civil Service, and such was evidently the view of those members of Council, whose disputes to the Bill, of which the right hon. Gentleman had given notice last year, were now before the House. A deputation had lately waited on the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles Wood), when, he was told, an address was made by Mr. Anderson, one of the Civil Servants, in which the claims of the Civil Service were set forth with an ability and a moderation which excited the highest praise on the part of all who heard him. The right hon. Gentleman himself was struck with the manner in which he laid the claims of the Civil Service before him; but, nevertheless, the Amendments which it was proposed to introduce into the Bill were not such as those claims required.
SIR HARRY VERNEYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had stated that there was not a sufficient number of competitors for the Civil Service; but the Returns showed that in 1857, when there were 12 places to dispose of, there were 60 competitors; in 1858, with 20 places, there were 62 competitors; in 1859, with 40 places, there
1658
were 119 competitors; and 1860, with 80 places, there were 154 competitors. If the Government had offered more places there would undoubtedly have been more competitors; but they had offered few places and then said the number of candidates were so few that the Civil Service must be thrown open. He believed that a Bill more precipitately introduced and more in opposition to the opinions of those who were best qualified to give an opinion upon it never had been introduced into Parliament. All the wisest and most judicious persons acquainted with India were against the opening of the Civil Service in the way proposed. Any calamity that in future might fall upon India through the operation of this Bill would be attributable to the right hon. Gentleman. It appeared from the Friend of India that already two gentlemen had been appointed to the Civil Service who were unacquainted with the Native languages. Was that a matter of slight importance? If they wished to rule India in a right manner those only should be appointed who knew something of the language, habits, and even prejudices of the people.
MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that in order to a proper consideration of this important measure, all the information possessed by the Government on the subject should be laid before the House. There was no question that the "Dissents" were of the utmost importance; and the House ought to know to what points of the Bill the "Dissents" objected. It was also most desirable to ascertain whether Sir John Lawrence was or was not favourable to this measure.
SIR JAMES FERGUSSONthought, as there was no Amendment before the House, it might be presumed that the principle of the Bill was approved, provided such restrictions were introduced as would prevent the abuse of the new system. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that very stringent restrictions were necessary; but the House ought to be in possession of the opinion of the Council of India on the subject before it could decide what these restrictions ought to be. When the Council was originally established it was clearly intended that the Members should have the power of placing their opinions on record, and it never was contemplated that such petty forms should be established as would prevent them expressing their opinions. The papers which had been laid before the House referred to the Bill of last year. He had

1659
placed on the table a short time ago a Motion for an Address for copies of any minutes of dissent by the Indian Council on this Bill; but the Secretary of State had informed him that there were no such papers. He should like to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether that was the case now? He warned the House not to allow it to be established as a practice that the House should not be put in possession of the opinion of the Members of the Council, or that those opinions should not be placed on record and produced for some small technical reason which had never been contemplated when the Council was established. If such knowledge was kept back, the House was not in possession of all the information it ought to have, and which might materially influence its decision.
MR. AYRTONwished to call the attention of the House to the view which had been taken by the hon. Baronet who had just spoken. He did not think that view at all to the advantage of the Council. Nothing would so soon conduce to the entire dissolution of the Council as to impress them with the idea that they were constituted for the purpose of supervising the relations between the Secretary of State and the House of Commons. The object for which the Council was established was that it should intervene between the Secretary of State and the Government of India, Every one felt that it would not be wise to allow a Secretary of State to send out despatches to the Government of India without the intervention of some independent body, and the Council was established as a check upon any ill-advised or indiscreet proceeding of the Secretary of State. It was perfectly clear, in a constitutional point of view, that the Secretary of State, when he desired to invite the House of Commons to legislate, had nothing to do with the Council. He might ask their opinion, just as he might ask (anybody else's, and he might, if he liked, lay it on the table; but it would only be the opinion of so many individuals. Legislation was not one of the functions vested in the Council by law; and to encourage an impression in the Council that they were to intervene in the conduct of business in Parliament, having been specifically excluded from the House of Commons, would be to lead to their certain dissolution. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was in the habit of frequently consulting the Board pf Inland Revenue, but if that Board took
1660
to minuting the acts of the Chancellor of the Exchequer they would very soon have to be dismissed. If the House of Commons felt itself incompetent to go on with this Bill and wished to have the opinion of the Council upon it, the Parliamentary way of obtaining it was to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, and then call the members of the Council before it as witnesses. But the fact was the House did not want to know what their opinion was, because it did not intend to shift to its own shoulders the responsibility of the Minister of the Crown. It was utterly in vain to attempt to induce the House to undertake the detailed arrangement of the Civil Service in India. It relied on the Minister to do that, and on him the responsibility would ultimately rest. At the same time it was of the utmost importance to inspire the Civil Servants in India with confidence in Her Majesty's Government—they ought to feel that when abroad they were supervised and protected by the Home Government. He hoped, therefore, that the House; would go into Committee, and that such modifications would be made in the Bill as would dispel the alarm which had been raised.
SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKE, in reference to the Minutes of the Council of India, said that he had a perfect recollection of what took place when the matter was formerly discussed, and he understood they were to be laid before the House if required. It appeared that important papers connected with the Bill were not laid before the Council for them to deliberate, upon, and, therefore, it was the more necessary that the House should be fully informed of all that had taken place in the Council; and if the House felt a real sense of the importance of this subject they would insist upon the production of these papers, before they proceeded further, He confessed he felt great alarm at the baste with which the House was asked to make vital changes in the administration of India.
MR. DANBY SEYMOURsaid, he could not agree with his hon. Friend (Mr. Ayrton) in his theory of the duties of the Council, which was established, in his opinion, not only generally to advise the Secretary of State on all matters relating to the good government of India, but particularly in regard to Bills like the present, which most materially related to the administration of affairs in that country. It was the duty of the Council to

1661
give their opinion on these matters, and that opinion ought to be laid before the House. No doubt, Parliament had a right to call far the Minutes made by the Council, and (hen, if anything important and requiring further explanation should appear in those Minutes, the House had a right to call the Members of the Council before a Select Committee. If the Members of the Council bad changed their opinion, why was not a short memorandum signed by them, stating that they no longer entertained the same objections as heretofore to the. Bill? No doubt, there was a majority in favour of the Bill as it now stood; but he thought the right hon. Gentleman would have better consulted the interests of Indian legislation if he had laid the "Dissents" before the House. It was assumed that this Bill was brought in solely on the responsibility of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles Wood); but the measure had been in the contemplation of the Government for many years past. He regretted that the Secretary of State had not fortified himself with the opinions of Lord Dalhousie and Lord Canning, of Mr. Halliday, and Sir George Clerk, all of whom recognized the necessity for this Bill, It was for the interest of India that the Civil Servants should be kept at the lowest number possible. He agreed with the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Willoughby) that when any alteration was about to be made in the position of the Civil Servants they had a right to ask the Government what was to be their position in future. He thought that when an alteration of this sort was made the Civil Servants had a just right to ask the Secretary of State in what position they would be placed if certain contingencies happened which might happen under this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman ought to go further. The funds were now in a flourishing position, and it would be better for the Government at once to make some arrangement respecting them. If a large number of persons now came into the service this fund must necessarily deteriorate, and the Civil Servants, on the other hand, would have acted wisely in offering to give up some of the extra interest at present paid on account of the fund, on condition that the Government gave them some security in the event of their suffering injury from the provisions of the Bill.
MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he wished to draw the attention of the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State to the subject
1662
of the duties of the Council. He believed that the House was induced to decide that the Members of the Indian Council should not hare seats in the House of Commons upon the understanding that they were to have full information given as to the subject matters discussed by the Council. The Council were to minute their opinions, and he distinctly understood that hon. Members would have a right to move for all the Minutes, in order that the House might be fully informed of the merits of every case discussed. He believed, however, that there were many Minutes on the subject of this Bill which had not been produced, and it was treating the House unfairly to keep them back. He was not surprised at the apprehensions entertained by the Civil Servants; but he did not share in those apprehensions, for their own ability and knowledge would secure them against injustice. He thought, however, that be right hon. Baronet ought to give some assurance on the subject.
SIR CHARLES WOODwas in hopes that when the House had agreed, without a division, to the principle of the Bill, they would have been spared discussion on this stage, especially as many topics had been touched on which were not very relevant to the subject matter of the measure. It was satisfactory, at all events, to find that the Bill had been treated throughout in no 'party spirit. It was the intention of the noble Lord who preceded him in office (Lord Stanley) to have introduced a similar measure, and the noble Lord had stated in the fairest manner that he felt as much responsible for it as he (Sir Charles Wood) was, and would give it the most cordial support. There could be no better proof of the absence of all party spirit With regard to the Council pf India, he thought the question which had been raised respecting the functions of that body had been settled last Session. The Council were to be the advisers, and in some cases a check, upon the Secretary of State in his executive capacity. But the Secretary of State was not bound to be guided by their opinions, or even to take their advice, in his legislative capacity. The Secretary of State for India was as unfettered and as free as the President of the Board of Control had ever been. The President of the Board of Control introduced Bills at his discretion, consulting the Board of Directors only when he chose to do so; and it was certainly never the intention of the Legislature to impose upon

1663
the Secretary of State fetters which were not imposed upon the President of the Board of Control. This question was raised when the amalgamation of the two armies was discussed. He then stated in the clearest terms this doctrine respecting the functions of the Indian Council; and the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli) entirely concurred in his views on this point. The words of the Act itself were conclusive, and clearly established that what he, as a Member of the Government, might do in introducing a Bill was not a question for the decision of the Council of India. As to the opinions of the Council on this Bill he had stated before that he introduced it with the general concurrence of the members of the Council. It was not true that it had been framed with the object of benefiting a member of the Council, but after the Bill had been agreed upon a case arose unexpectedly, which showed the great advantage to be derived from its provisions, which would authorize the appointment to a most important office of a man who was a member of the Council, but who, above all others, was the most fitted for it. The Minutes referred to by the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Forster) were recorded against the Bill of last year, and some of the Members of the Council objected to their being produced against the Bill of this year; but they did not object to the production of them with the memoranda appended to them as they appeared on the paper. He had been asked why he had not fortified himself with regard to this measure by the opinions of men of authority on Indian questions. His reply was that he had done so, and had on a former occasion referred to the recorded opinions of such men as Lord Auckland, Lord Hardinge, Lord Elphinstone, Lord Dalhousie, and Lord Canning. The fact was this—the persons who were in authority in India, and had the responsibility of making appointments, felt the necessity of some such provisions as those of this Bill being enacted, that they might find proper persons to fill those offices, or, to use a common phrase, to put the right man in the right place. It was, therefore, not without the authority of the Civil Service itself that he had introduced a Bill of this kind. With reference to the funds of the Civil Service of India, he had received some representations from it. A deputation of the Civil Service had waited on him, and stated the case very fairly. But they felt themselves that it would be impossible to
1664
include in this Bill any provision that would ensure the object they sought; but they wished him to state distinctly in the House what his opinion was on the subject. This he had not the least reluctance to do. His opinion was that they were not likely to be injured by any possible application of the provisions of the Bill, the object of which was, as he had before stated, to provide for special and exceptional cases. He could not, however, deny that there was a possibility, very slight though it was, of their being injured in their funds by the provisions of the Bill; but he had expressed to them the opinion which he had promised to repeat in the House, that if it should turn out that the existing members of the Civil Service were injured in respect of their funds, either for themselves or their families, by any use or abuse of the powers conferred by the Bill, they would have a fair right to claim compensation. This, they said, was all they could fairly ask, and they would be perfectly satisfied if he clearly stated this in the House. He had not the slightest objection to give them the full benefit of the statement. If the existing members of the Civil Service could show that they sustained any injury from the use or abuse of the powers of this Bill they would have a fair right to be indemnified for any loss.
MR. VANSITTARTsaid, the members of the Civil Service now in London were not satisfied with this Bill; on the contrary, they objected to it, with or without restrictions. They thought it altogether unnecessary; and felt that it could have but one result—that it would gradually sap and destroy the noble Service to which they belonged. The time for the consideration of the Bill was very short; and the members of the Civil Service had not had any communication with their colleagues in India. It was never supposed that such a Bill would be brought in this Session. In March last there was no intention of doing so; but it had been brought forward in an extraordinary manner. Up to last night it stood as the third of the Indian Bills on the paper; and, the present discussion not being expected to come on till a late hour that evening, several hon. Members who were prepared to discuss it were not then present. For the satisfaction of the Civil Service they had only the right hon. Gentleman's ipse dixit—no doubt a just one; but they could not tell how long he would be in office, and they would like something equivalent

1665
to the statement to be inserted in the measure.
House in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clause 1 (Certain Appointments not in accordance with the Provisions of 33 Geo. III., c. 52, s. 57, and like Appointments hereafter to the same Offices to be valid),
MR. VANSITTARTrose to move, as an Amendment, the omission of the word "heretofore," in line 11, and the insertion, after "made," of the words "before the commencement of the present Session." In moving the insertion of those words he begged to draw attention to the wording of this clause. It was notorious that within the last six months the Indian Government, under a strong pressure brought to bear upon it by the press of Calcutta, had gone much further in appointing persons out of the service to high civil offices than they had heretofore done. He referred, more especially, to the creation of a number of Small Cause Courts in the Mofussil, and to the appointment to them of barristers on high salaries. These barristers were gentlemen who had only been resident for a year or two in the country, and were wholly ignorant of the languages—in fact, so ignorant as to require the aid of interpreters; yet under the wording of Clause 1 these appointments would be made effectual and valid. Now, he contended that the restrictions which would be applied to appointments in Clause 2 should also be made applicable to these appointments, or else they would have a number of offices filled in a manner contrary to the deliberate opinion of this House as expressed in Clause 2. Probably few subjects were more investigated and inquired into by the Colonization Committee, on which he had the honour to serve, than that of these Small Cause Courts. By the evidence of one set of witnesses, consisting of lawyers, barristers, and pleaders practising at the Sudder Courts of the different Presidency towns, it appeared that the one thing needed for the general improvement of India was "more lawyers." On the other hand, it was strongly contended by witnesses who possessed great practical knowledge of the habits and customs of the Natives and the country—namely, planters, merchants, civilians, and military men holding high civil and political appointments—that if there was one thing more calculated to add to the unpopularity of our Government it would be the introduction of English law to be administered in the English language
1666
by English barristers in the Mofussil courts. They pointed out the great hardship that would be inflicted on the Natives, plaintiffs, defendants, vakeels, and spectators, were the proceedings to be carried on in English, as they understood merely their own language; and that it would most assuredly be regarded by the Natives throughout India as an act of the grossest injustice, and, to make use of an expression of Mr. Hawkins, one of the witnesses examined before the Committee, "as a badge of conquest," designed to degrade them. He could remember when it was deemed expedient to abolish the Persian language in those courts, in order to introduce the vernacular languages—that is, Hindustani and Bengali. He would read one or two extracts from answers of witnesses who appeared before the Committee. Mr. Mackenzie, an indigo planter, in regard to the course of legislation which was being pursued, said—
"Since the time of Macaulay's Commission we have had a wholesale manufactory of laws in India. The laws we have introduced one year we have repeated the next. We had the Legislative Council making laws; we had the Sudder Court of Calcutta giving the construction of the law; and in many cases the terms of the law and the construction were quite opposed. I think that the great mistake we make in legislating for India is that we legislate for the people of India after our ideas and the habits and customs of this country, quite forgetting that they are entirely inapplicable to those of the Natives."
Mr. Marshmansaid—
"The Natives have shown a strong repugnance to any idea of extending the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court."
Lord Macaulay also expressed a strong opinion of the dread among the Natives of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, and he spoke from documents and petitions that were presented to the Council. He would not, however, abuse the indulgence of the Committee by quoting any more of the evidence to this effect. It was enough to say that it was generally admitted by the Committee that, although these Small Cause Courts might be popular at Calcutta, yet the feeling was the very reverse as regarded their jurisdiction being extended to the Mofussil. The causes which were decided in Calcutta were generally simple contracts, or questions of sale, or any minor criminal actions, but they were quite different from the complicated cases which occurred in the Mofussil courts with reference to the proprietorship of land, the division of property, the land assessment, the settlement of boundary disputes and

1667
resumption laws. Again, it would be impossible to procure the necessary number of experienced barristers at Calcutta; and he could not believe that a young man, practising at the Bar in England and earning £500 a year, would be induced to relinquish that for a life of expatriation in a remote station in Bengal, far away from the civilized world, on a salary of £1,200 or £1,500 a year. It would, therefore, give rise to immense political power and patronage, because the Secretary of State for India would be enabled to oblige an avowed or shaky supporter of the Government of the day by providing any one to whom he was indebted for services rendered at his election with one of these appointments. India would, therefore, be flooded with briefless lawyers, and electioneering agents. A great injustice would, at the same time, be inflicted upon that useful and laborious class of public servants known as Moonsiffs, Sudder Ameens, and Principal Sudder Ameens, who are either Natives or East Indians, as they were being gradually superseded and absorbed by the Small Cause Courts.
Amendment moved to omit the word "heretofore," and to insert after the word "made" the words "before the commencement of the present Session."
COLONEL SYKESsaid, as it appeared that these Small Cause Courts had been established within the last year, and as there was no security that the persons who had been appointed had any knowledge of Mahommedan or Hindoo law, by which civil causes were determined, he objected to the clause confirming the appointments unless the parties were made subject to examination. And no future appointments should be made without an examination testifying the capacity of the candidates for the duties which would be required of them.
SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEwished to know whether the object of the clause was to make what had been done the rule for the future? If so, he should object to the clause, though he was not unwilling to give the Government a Bill of indemnity for what had hitherto been done.
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, the first and second clauses should be kept entirely separate, as they had nothing in the world to do with each other. The other night he stated that up to the present time certain appointments had been made in India with the common consent of every body in India, not excepting the most rigid
1668
sticklers for the rights of the covenanted Service. The noble Lord his predecessor in the office of Secretary for India took the opinion of the then law officers on the subject of these appointments, and, according to that opinion, they were illegal. To remedy this state of things the first part of the first clause rendered all such appointments as had been made legal; and by the second part of the clause similar appointments would be made legal for the future. The second clause had a different object, and enabled the authorities in India, with the consent of the Secretary of State in Council, to appoint in special cases to situations hitherto exclusively reserved for the covenanted Service.
SIR MINTO FARQUHARthought it right to confirm the past appointments; but it became important to know from what date the appointments were to be confirmed.
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, he should not object to meet the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. VansiUart) half-way, and should assent to the insertion of the words "before the 1st of April last," after the word "made," the word "heretofore" being omitted.
Amendment withdrawn.
Clause amended, in accordance with Sir Charles Wood's suggestion, and agreed to.
SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEobjected to the clause on the ground that it would empower the Governor General to appoint military men to perform civil duties, not only in the non-regulation, but also in the regulation Provinces. He could understand the existence of such a power in the old Court of Directors; but they were now engaged in providing statutory powers for the Governor General; and they ought to understand clearly what these powers were, or else consent at once to give the Governor General carte blanche. It appeared to him that under the clause the Governor General might appoint a military man to be a Judge in the Sudder Ameen.
MR. LONGFIELDalso maintained that the latter portion of the clause went far beyond the exigencies of the case which it had been framed to meet. He could not see, for example, why, because an indemnity was granted for appointments illegally made in the past, a power should be granted, as was proposed by the latter portion of the clause, to make "similar appointments" for the future. He should, under these circumstances, suggest the omission of the latter portion of the clause.
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, it was necessary to use the word "similar," inasmuch as if the word "same" only were employed the clause would not apply to the different appointments of the same character.
MR. LONGFIELD, notwithstanding the high authority of the right hon. Baronet, must maintain that the use of the word "same" would be much safer than that of the word "similar."
SIR HARRY VERNEYsaw no necessity for the first clause at all. Nobody objected to or questioned the appointments to which it referred.
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, that the law officers of the Crown had suggested the clause as requisite to render legal appointments which everybody approved.
MR. VANSITTARTwished to move the omission of the words "or similar" in the latter part of the clause providing that appointments to "the same or similar offices, places, and employments" to those hitherto filled by uncovenanted servants, contrary to the 33rd of George III., and which were now to be legalized, might hereafter be filled in like manner. Unless his Amendment were adopted, every appointment would come within the scope of such general words as "or similar." Colonel Durand's appointment as Foreign Secretary, and the whole of the secrétariate appointments, would be thrown open by the terms of the clause. He, therefore, moved the omission of these words, in order that there might be no mistake as to the appointments intended for outsiders, and those which were to remain for the Civil Service.
Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 20, to leave out the words "or similar."
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, the hon. Member for Windsor mistook the meaning of this clause. Colonel Durand would be appointed under the next clause to a place reserved for the covenanted Service. The words "or similar" would have this effect:—Take the case of a Sudder Ameen. Nobody objected to a Native or an uncovenanted servant being appointed to such an office; but unless these words were retained it would be impossible to appoint such persons to such situations, except in the identical situations which they had held before.
MR. AYRTONsaid, that a Sudder Ameen had never been a covenanted civil servant. Certain defined appointments had hitherto been assumed to belong to the
1670
covenanted Civil Service; and the system had grown up in this manner. From time to time the old Court of Directors sent out despatches to define what appointments should belong to their civil servants, and those offices had consequently been regarded as employments restricted to that particular Service. But all other appointments had been deemed open appointments, to be held by Natives, military men, or anybody whom the Governor General, or the Governors of Presidencies might select. By omitting the words no injustice or inconvenience would be done to any one, whereas the retention of them would practically be putting an end to the Civil Service.
MR. FINLAYsaid, he had been in India several years, unconnected with the Government, and could, therefore, form an independent opinion. His experience was that the Civil Service, though a very efficient body of men, were not sufficiently numerous to carry on the duties devolved upon them; it was, therefore, found necessary to appoint officers from regiments to, perform those duties, and the object of this Bill was to facilitate such appointments, which were found to be conducive to the good government of India. He thought the omission of the words would place an inconvenient restriction on the Government.
MR. LONGFIELDthought the words so flexible as to include all appointments, and offered no safeguard whatever to the Civil Service.
MR. PULLERobjected to the word "similar" as wide and loose, and was not prepared to place the interests of the Civil Servants of India in jeopardy by the introduction of such words. If it was found that an uncovenanted Civil Servant had ever filled the office of Judge, magistrate, or collector, the word "similar" in the clause would permit of such appointments, being made in any or all the provinces of India.
MR. AYRTONsuggested words to the effect that where a class of offices had heretofore been filled by uncovenanted servants then the same class of offices might be filled hereafter in a like manner.
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, he had proposed to make the clause apply to the same class of offices to which uncovenanted servants had been before appointed. He could only say the words of the clause had been most carefully considered, and he believed those which were in the Bill were

1671
the best that could be found. All that was wanted was to continue the power of making appointments, which up to the present time no one had questioned but the law officers of the Crown.
MR. DANBY SEYMOURthought that if it was intended to do away with the Civil Service of India it should be done openly, and not by a side-wind. The clauses were most imperfectly drawn, and he would suggest that the Bill should be submitted to some able lawyer to put into practical shape.
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, an English and an Indian lawyer had been consulted in the preparation of the clause.
Question put, "That those words stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 46; Noes 31: Majority 15.
Clause 2 (Granting power to make like appointments to other offices, the special circumstances being reported in each case to the Secretary of State),
MR. AYRTONproposed to leave out "under the special circumstances of the ease," and to substitute "as a special and exceptional case."
SIR CHARLES WOODthought the alteration unnecessary.
Amendment negatived.
SIR CHARLES WOODproposed to insert the following words:—
"Except in the departments of Finance and Customs in the Presidency towns, no person shall be so appointed who has not resided for a period of at least seven years in India, and shall not have passed an examination in the vernacular language of the district in which he is to be employed."
MR. VANSITTARTthought that an examination in more than one of the Indian languages should be required.
COLONEL SYKESalso thought that every candidate should be required to pass an examination in Hindustani as well as in the vernacular of the district.
Amendment agreed to.
MR. ADAMmoved to add the following words to the Amendment proposed by the Secretary for India, "and in all other local departmental tests which are now or may hereafter be prescribed for covenanted Civil Servants in a like case." He proposed the Amendment, he said, as an act of justice to the covenanted Servants and as an act of security to the public. Any ensign in a marching regiment or any idle young man about town might go out to India, and by reading half an hour a day
1672
with a Moonshee might in a few months qualify himself to pass an examination in the Native language, and such an examination was, therefore, no test of his fitness for appointment. On the other hand, the covenanted servants had to pass two very severe examinations, involving not only a knowledge of the languages, but also a knowledge of the duties of the collectorate, of the mode of keeping village accounts, and of revenue and judicial matters generally. It would be manifestly unfair to allow a non-covenanted person to be appointed without examination over the heads of covenanted servants, who had been so severely tested. It was a mere act of justice to the latter that non-covenanted candidates should be subjected to the same tests which they had to undergo.
Amendment proposed, after the word "employed," at the end of the last Amendment, to insert the words "and in all other local departmental tests which are now, or may hereafter be, prescribed for covenanted Civil Servants in a like case "
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, he could not be expected to defend the two provisions which in deference to the wish of the House he had agreed to insert in the Bill, although he believed it would be better without them. He admitted that a residence of seven years in India and a knowledge of Hindustani and other languages were not of themselves sufficient tests of fitness for office, and believed that these requirements might interfere with the appointment of very competent persons to certain posts. It was absurd to insist on a knowledge of Hindustani from a non-covenanted person appointed to a situation in the Madras Presidency, where no one spoke that language. It was necessary for a civil servant, who was liable to be Sent from one part of the country to another, to possess a much more general knowledge than a man who filled a special office for which he was peculiarly qualified, and it was unreasonable to demand the same qualification from the one as from the other. The Committee must not, however"; run away with the notion that because certain qualifications were not specified in the Bill they would not be required. There were many tests imposed on civil servants at present of which no mention was made in any Act of Parliament, and the Government would still have it in their power to require any qualification they deemed necessary, though they were not prescribed in the Bill. The disadvantage of inserting

1673
them in the Bill was that it might exclude from office a perfectly competent person because he did not possess qualifications which were really unnecessary. He had already cancelled an appointment made by the Governor General and another made by the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal, and there was no disposition on the part of the Government to allow offices to be held by improper persons. As a general rule it would be quite right that a non-covenanted candidate should exhibit the same qualifications as a civil servant, but it was essential that the Government should have a discretion in exceptional cases. Therefore he did not think the Amendment of the hon. Member desirable.
MAJOR WINDSOR PARKERbegged to inform the right hon. Gentleman that Hindustani was understood both in the Madras and Bombay Presidencies; indeed he had travelled a great deal in India, and he never passed through any district where Hindustani was not spoken.
COLONEL SYKEScorroborated the hon. and gallant Member as to Hindustani being generally spoken in India. He held it necessary that the test should be enforced by Act of Parliament.
MR. WILBRAHAM EGERTONdeemed it essential that qualification for office should be proved before any appointment was made, as otherwise incompetent persons might slip into the service.
SIR MINTO FARQUHARsaid, that Colonel Durand had stated that the check which was provided in this Bill would be no protection against jobbery.
SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEhoped that the right hon. Baronet would consider this Amendment. Why should not persons who were appointed to situations in India be subjected to the same tests as those to which candidates for the covenanted Civil Service were required to submit?
MR. PULLERthought that a residence of seven years in India and a knowledge of the language of the country was a sufficient test.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he did not think that all these important matters ought to be left to the regulation of the Secretary of State in Council. He wished to know whether the hon. Member for Kinross (Mr. Adam) intended that the gentlemen appointed to high offices under this clause should enter into the engagements to produce their private accounts, not to trade, and to avoid anything in the shape of bribery and corruption, which
1674
were now required of covenanted servants?
MR. ADAMsaid, that those engagements would be rendered necessary by a clause which he intended to propose to follow Clause 3 of the Bill.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 51; Noes 66: Majority 15.
SIR HARRY VERNEYmoved that the following words be added at the end of the clause:—"And he shall pass the same examination as that prescribed for Civil servants in like cases."
SIR CHARLES WOODthought this question had been already decided. He might mention that, having consulted persons who were well acquainted with the part of India referred to, he found that Hindustani was not the language generally spoken in the Madras Presidency.
MAJOR WINDSOR PARKERsaid, there were districts which were attached sometimes to one province and sometimes to another, and it was idle to suppose that the inhabitants did not speak Hindustani. At Nagpore and Sangur, for instance, all commissariat contracts were entered into in the Hindustani language.
MR. J. B. SMITHthought the wording of the clause, which only required a knowledge of the vernacular was sufficient, but the member of the covenanted Service, who was obliged to possess a more extended knowledge of Indian languages, would, of course, be in a more favourable position.
Amendment negatived.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
MR. ADAMproposed the following clause:—
"Any person who shall have been or shall be appointed to any office, place, or employment under this Act Shall be subject to the provisions of any Statute, Rule, or Order, now in force prohibiting the receipt of presents, trading, or other acts by Covenanted Civil Servants."
The object of this clause was to carry out the system first instituted by Lord Olive, since which date our Indian administration had improved and, prospered, as was ably shown in the well-known essay of Lord Macaulay.
Clause brought up, and read 1°.
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, that his objection to the clause was that the covenanted servants were prevented accenting presents by regulations and oaths, and not by Act of Parliament. He did not see why it should be inserted in this Bill and made applicable by Acts of Parliament to one

1675
set of Servants, when it was not applicable to the other. Bribery was punished by the penal code, and no further provision was necessary.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause be now rend a second time."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 57; Noes 74: Majority 17.
On Question that the Preamble do pass,
MR. VANSITTARTasked the right hon. Baronet if he did not intend to do anything with reference to the question which they had just divided on? He really did not believe that the House knew what they had been dividing about. It was a positive fact that by this division they had legalized the taking of bribes. The right hon. Baronet had said that it was already provided for by the penal code relative to the uncovenanted Service. But this was not the uncovenanted Service, and it would be quite competent for any person sent out by the right hon. Gentleman to engage in trade, and he wished to know how, in that case, they could prevent the receipt of presents?
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, there would be an effectual check put upon the taking of bribes when the appointments were made.
SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, he thought the clause altogether unnecessary. There was no such check thought necessary with regard to the army, and he did not see why they should make a special provision in this case. When the House was asked to include a general principle against corruption, to refuse it led to an improper inference which they ought not to be exposed to.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, the clause involved a general principle. The question was whether these servants were to be allowed to do what the covenanted servants were forbidden to do. Was it unreasonable that they should be precluded from receiving presents, trading, and doing other acts which the other civil servants in India were not allowed to do? Upon the former question he voted with the Government, because he thought the matter might be left to the responsible advisers of the Crown. But this clause embodied a principle, and he could not conceive how the Committee could reject it. The rejection of it by possibility implied that the new class of servants might be allowed to do these things. ["No!"] He did not suppose that the Government had such an intention; but when the Committee was
1676
asked to include in its legislation a general provision against what was and ought to be considered corruption, the negativing that proposition led to an undue and improper inference, to which Parliament ought not to be exposed. For that reason he wished to press upon the consideration of the Government whether there could be any harm whatever in allowing the clause to be introduced.
THE CHAIRMANreminded the House that the question regarding the clause had been disposed of.
Preamble agreed to.
On Question that the Bill as amended be reported,
MR. ADAMstated, that the prohibition of the covenanted Servants was embodied in the 33 Geo. III., c. 52, and, therefore, the Clause he proposed ought to be embodied in this Bill.
SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEwarned the House that they were by this Bill putting in the small end of the wedge that would fructify to an extent which they perhaps little anticipated. They had created an enormous Service which it would be absolutely necessary to keep within strict rules and regulations, otherwise it would disgrace them in India. He hoped the hon. Member for Kinross would bring the question to which he had adverted forward upon the Report.
MR. E. P. BOUVERIEhoped, to use the metaphor of this hon. Gentleman, that the small end of the wedge which he had put in would not fructify into a debate at this stage of the Bill. This was the first time he had heard a discussion upon a clause after it had been decided upon by the House.
House resumed.
Bill reported, as amended, to be considered on Monday next.

EAST INDIA (HIGH COURTS OF JUDICATURE) BILL.—COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 (Constitution of High Courts),
MR. VINCENT SCULLYproposed to limit the Judges in Bengal to a number not exceeding twelve. As the Bill stood the Secretary for India would have an unlimited power of appointing Judges at salaries from £3,000 to £8,000 a year, a state of things which he deprecated.
MR. VANSITTARTasked the right

1677
hon. Gentleman in what manner vacancies in the number of the Judges were to be filled up?
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, that the Judges would be appointed by Her Majesty. With respect to the Amendment proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Cork, he could assure the Committee that there would be no desire on the part of the Government to have more Judges than were necessary. There were at present at Calcutta three of the Superior Court, and ten—five regular and five additional—of the Sudder Court; therefore, he did not wish to limit himself to twelve as he could not now state the precise number which would be necessary. There were at present thirteen; and he would not object to have the limit fifteen, but it did not follow that that number would be appointed.
MR. VINCENT SCULLYwas willing to make the limit fifteen, but he must certainly object to an unlimited power of appointment.
Amendment withdrawn; clause amended by the insertion of the word "fifteen" and agreed to.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYobjected to the power proposed to be given to the Secretary of State to appoint as many Judges as he might think proper.
MR. VANSITTARTwanted to know how the Judges were to be paid and appointed?
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, the object was to make such arrangements under the Bill as would ensure speedy justice in India. He hoped the Committee would not tie him down to a certain number of Judges until he had seen how the new system worked.
MR. HADFIELDmoved to insert the words "or attorneys" after the word "barristers," his object being to give the right hon. Gentleman a wider choice in appointments.
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, he should be sorry to enter into a discussion on the comparative merits of the two classes of lawyers. He saw no reasons for departing from the qualifications imposed by the present law, and be must, therefore, object to the Amendment.
Amendment negatived.
MR. VANSITTARTmoved an Amendment mating it necessary that a barrister shall be of ten years' standing before being eligible for a Judgeship, instead of five, as proposed by the clause. Ten years was the standing required from the members of
1678
the covenanted Service, and they passed through a much more severe and complete preparation than barristers.
Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 3, to leave out the word "five," and insert the word "ten."
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, that five years was the present qualification, and, having been found sufficient to secure competent persons for the office, he was not disposed to alter it.
Question put, "That the word 'five' stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 99; Noes 41: Majority 58.
MR. VINCENT SCULLYsaid, the effect of the Bill would be to swamp the Courts by the admission of untrained Civil Servants, who ought to be barristers. He would propose that a moiety of the Court should be barristers, and he would, therefore, move to leave out "one-third" and insert "one-half."
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, the object he had in view was to insure a due proportion both of lawyers and civilians. The Government wanted the legal knowledge of the lawyers with the local knowledge of the Civil Servants. The Bill, therefore, provided that one-third of the Judges should be barristers and one-third Civil Servants, leaving it to the Government to choose the remaining third from either one class or the other, or from Natives or other qualified persons. To insist on one-half of the Judges being barristers would give the lawyers an undue proportion.
MR. J. B. SMITHquoted the opinion of an eminent Sudder Judge to show that a previous knowledge of the principles of law was most desirable as regarded the Judges, and he thought the Motion of his hon. Friend was a very reasonable one.
MR. VINCENT SCULLYdenied that he had brought forward this Motion in any legal sense. He submitted it in the public interest.
MR. KINNAIRDsupported the Government proposition.
Amendment negatived.
MR. ADAM, in line 16, moved to leave out the words "including the Chief Justice," the effect of which would be to leave the office of Chief Justice open to other than banisters. He contended that it was extremely probable that civilians who had acted as Judges, having to deal with questions of Mahommedan and Hindoo law, might be more qualified to act as supreme Judges than barristers. He trusted

1679
this "rag of exclusion" would not be kept up at a time when throwing open these offices was the general principle of legislation.
SIR CHARLES WOODhad endeavoured to constitute the Court as fairly as he could between the two professions. The courts in which justice was administered by English lawyers had given great satisfaction. He thought it essential that the Chief Justice should be a trained lawyer.
Amendment negatived.
MR. J. B. SMITHmoved as an Amendment to insert in line 18, after "service," the words "Provided also that hereafter no member of the Civil Service shall be appointed a Judge of such High Court who shall not have previously undergone a legal training." He had known men in India who had never decided a case nominated to the S udder Bench. Suppose, instead of the eminent lawyer who had just been made Lord Chancellor, the Government had appointed a Commissioner of Inland Revenue or a Receiver of Customs, what would have been said? This class of officers were appointed Judges in India; yet it was not a court of first instance, but a high court of appeal.
Amendment proposed, in line 18, after the word "service," to insert the words "and provided also, that hereafter no member of the Civil Service shall be appointed a Judge of such High Court who shall not have previously undergone a legal training."
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, the members of the Civil Service had considerable legal training. By the proposed constitution of the Court their knowledge of the country would be combined with the regular legal training of the other Judges.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 5; Noes 120: Majority, 115.
Clause 3 (Existing Judges of Supreme Court, and Court of Sudder Dewanny Adawlut to be the First Judges of the High Court),
MR. VINCENT SCULLYmoved the insertion of words in the clause to the effect that any Judge of the Supreme Court at present in office should be allowed to resign at any time with the same retiring pension that he would be entitled to if he had served ten years at the time of the passing of this Bill. The Bill, he said, proposed to impose upon the Judges much more onerous and aborious duties than they had hitherto been
1680
called upon to perform, and they ought, therefore, to have the option of continuing in office, or retiring under the circumstances suggested by his Amendment.
SIR CHARLES WOODopposed the Amendment. No Judges earned their retiring pensions so easily as the Judges of India. No less than £22,000 a year was at present paid in the shape of retiring pensions to such Judges. The effect of the Amendment, if agreed to, would be to enable any existing Judge, no matter how short his term of service, to retire with a full pension.
MR. VINCENT SCULLYconsidered the right hon. Gentleman's reply unsatisfactory, and, therefore, said he should divide the Committee upon the point.
THE CHAIRMANruled that the Amendment could not be put, inasmuch as its operation would be to impose a charge on revenue which must, in the first instance, be sanctioned by a Committee of the Whole House.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 4 (Tenure of Office of High Court),
MR. VINCENT SCULLYmoved the insertion of the words "their good behaviour respectively," in lieu of the words, "Her Majesty's pleasure," his object being to make the practice in India correspond with that in this country, where Judges were independent of the Crown, so long as they continued properly to discharge the duties of their office.
SIR CHARLES WOODopposed the Amendment. It was not desirable to make any more change in the existing system than was absolutely necessary; and the clause as it stood simply went to maintain a system which had hitherto been found to work satisfactorily in India.
Amendment negatived; Clause agreed to.
Clause 5 (Precedence of Judges of High Courts),
MR. AYRTONmoved the insertion of words at the end of the clause for the purpose of saving the prerogative of the Crown in regard to fixing the precedence of the Judges.
SIR CHARLES WOODsaw no objection to these words.
MR. VINCENT SCULLYsaw great objection to them, and thought them most unconstitutional. There was a see-saw system going on in respect of this Bill between the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, who was backing him, and the Secretary of State for India.
Amendment agreed to; Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6 (Salaries, &c, of the Judges of the High Courts),
SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEasked whether the Civil Servants called upon to act in these Courts would receive the same retiring pension as the legal members? At present these Civil Servants were entitled on their retirement to superannuations of £1,000 a year, one-half of which had been contributed by themselves in the shape of deductions from their pay; whereas the legal members of these Courts would receive pensions of £1,200 to £1,600.
SIR CHARLES WOODbelieved the Civil Members of the Courts would be entitled to their Civil Service superannuation.
SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, that great injustice would be done to these Civil Servants if they were not put on an equal footing with the legal members of these Courts.
MR. VANSITTARTsaid, this important point ought not to be discussed at that late hour (one o'clock). It was most unfair to reduce the pension of these highly qualified Civil Servants below that of mere barristers of five years' standing.
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, that the Civil Servants had not hitherto been entitled to anything else than their superannuation allowance; but it would be in the power of the Secretary of State in Council to consider their claim to something further.
MR. E. P. BOUVERIEthought the Bill would give the Government great power over these Judges, and suggested that words should be introduced into the clause on the Report, limiting the authority of the Secretary of State in Council to make regulations with respect to their emoluments and pensions, so that whatever was done in the matter might apply to the Judges generally, and not to individual cases only.
SIR CHARLES WOODpromised to adopt the suggestion.
SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEmoved that the Chairman report Progress.
Motion negatived Clause agreed to.
MR. HENNESSYinquired whether, as this Bill seriously affected the bar of India, it had been when drawn submitted to the present Lord Chancellor, who was then first law officer of the Crown?
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid it was not.
Remaining Clauses agreed to.
House resumed.
Bill reported; as amended, to be considered on Monday next.

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
Order for Committee (Supply) read.
House in Committee; Mr. MASSEY in the Chair.
£250,000 on account Packet Service.
MR. PEELhoped the Committee would consent to vote £250,000 on account of payments to the contractors for the conveyance of mails by sea. These payments were payable quarterly, and at the end of this month the different Companies under contract would send in their claims. The only available source from which they could be paid was a Vote taken in the course of the year, and this was the last night on which the Vote could be granted, if granted at all.
Vote agreed to.
House resumed.
Resolution to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

COURTS OF JUSTICE BUILDING BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a third time."
  MR. LYGONcomplained that they were about to sanction the expenditure of a million and a half of money for building these concentrated Law Courts without having as yet decided on the site. The Commissioners had taken only evidence respecting one scheme, that of the Incorporated Law Society, while there were two other plans suggested. One was to provide for all the Equity Courts in Lincoln's Inn, and the other to concentrate all the Law Courts in Lincoln's Inn Fields, the trustees of which were willing to expend the whole amount received for the site in carrying out metropolitan improvements. He, therefore, moved that the order for the third reading be discharged, and that the Bill be recommitted.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the Order for Third Reading be discharged,"—instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. COWPERsaid, that the subject had undergone more consideration than the hon. Gentleman supposed. Then had been a Committee in 1842, and another

  1683
  in 1845. Sir Charles Barry was at first in favour of the Lincoln's Inn Fields scheme, but subsequently gave evidence in favour of that how proposed by this Bill. The object was to concentrate all the law courts upon one spot, or in immediate contiguity, and in that respect the Lincoln's Inn Fields plan would be insufficient. The freeholders of Lincoln's Inn Fields proposed to give 3 acres or 3½ acres for that purpose, while the area in this Bill was 7 acres. He must press the Bill now, because, having to pass the Standing Orders of the House of Lords for a private Bill, postponement would be equivalent to rejection. The House could not be committed to the Scheme by assenting to this Bill, because another Bill the Courts of Justice Money Bill, contained the operative clauses, and he would take care that there should be ample time for discussion before that Bill passed.
  MR. ALDERMAN COPELANDthought that the site in Lincoln's Inn was preferable to the one proposed in the Bill, and would give five acres. He was afraid that the scheme favoured by the Government would involve an expenditure of at least £2,000,000.
  MR. SELWYNsaid, the Government were pressing the Bill forward in a manner calculated to stifle all discussion. If the House were hastily to pass the Bill they would prevent the adoption, even the consideration of a speedy, easy, and inexpensive plan for the accommodation of the Courts of Equity. In 1859 the Society of Lincoln's Inn offered to provide from their own funds, upon their own land, sufficient accommodation for the Courts of Equity, in return for which all they asked was 4 per cent upon the money actually expended by them, the sum so paid to them not to exceed; under any circumstances, £4,000 a year. The plans had been prepared and approved by all the Equity Judges, and they would have been carried out long ago but for this gigantic and visionary scheme of the Government, which would cost at least £2,000,000. He maintained, moreover, that the Suitors' Fund should be applied to other purposes than those of building courts of common law. The present Lord Chancellor was of the same opinion; and there could be no doubt, in fact, that the scheme of the Government virtually amounted to a confiscation of the Suitors' Fund. If the Bill were recommitted, he should propose the adoption of the plan submitted by the Society
  1684
  of Lincoln's Inn in 1859, and, therefore, he hoped the House would agree to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Tewkesbury.
  SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEsaid, that if the Government were to give the House an assurance that the question of site would be reconsidered, he should advise his hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONbelieved it was the general opinion of the legal profession that it would be an enormous advantage to the public if the plan now proposed were carried out. There were insurmountable objections to building the Courts in Lincoln's Inn Fields, If the Courts were erected there they would occupy a vacant space in a part of the town where a vacant space was much needed. He doubted, moreover, whether Lincoln's Inn Fields would be large enough for the purpose. The loss of time and of money arising from the present scattered position of the Courts was well known, and he really hoped the House would not object to the passing of this Bill. If the Money Bill, which was the Bill that would determine the matter, should not pass, the whole scheme must fall to the ground; but the present Bill was necessary in order to enable the Government to carry out the arrangements provided by the other measure. The money was to come out of the Suitors' Fund, and it was only a contingent liability to the public—a liability, moreover, which he hoped would never be practically felt.
  MR. LYGONsaid, that if the money Bill were referred to a Select Committee, with an Instruction to consider the question of site, he should have no objection to withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. COWPERstated that a Select Committee had already agreed upon a site. He did not know whether the Money Bill was so drawn that the question of site would properly come within the order of reference; but, for his own part, he should have no objection to the reconsideration of that matter.
  MR. LYGONsaid, there might be a special preference, and upon that understanding he begged to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read 3°, and passed.
  House adjourned at Two o'clock

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Harbours; Public Works (Ireland) Advances and Repayments of Monies; Voters (Ireland).
3a East India Loan.
The Lord BROUGHAM AND VAUX—Chosen Speaker in the Absence of the Lord Speaker.

LORD CHANCELLOR.
THE LORD PRESIDENT THE LORD PRESIDENT acquainted the House, That Her Majesty had been pleased to create The Right Honourable Sir Richard Bethell, Knight, Lord Chancellor of Great Britain, a Peer of this Realm, by the Title of Baron Westbury; and his Lordship, having retired to robe, was introduced in the usual Manner.
THE TURNER GALLERY.

  QUESTION.
  LORD ST. LEONARDSrose to ask the President of the Council, Whether any steps bad been taken to provide a separate Gallery for Turner's Pictures in connection with the National Gallery, according to the conditions of his Will under which the Nation possesses the Pictures? The Nation under Mr. Turner's will received 324 paintings, and a vast number of water colour drawings, and the Royal Academy had received £20,000, and both the Nation and the Academy appeared to be under the impression that these gifts were received without any conditions. But the pictures were bequeathed to the Nation on conditions, and the Nation took them subject to every condition imposed by the will. On a former occasion when he drew the attention of the House to this subject, the Government then represented by the noble Marquess opposite (Lord Lansdowne) pledged themselves that the intentions of Mr. Turner should be carried out, and his noble Friend (Lord Derby) after he had succeeded to the head of the Government said that he considered him self bound by the declaration of the pre-
  1636
  ceding Government. The conditions upon which the pictures were received were these. Turner by his will gave two of his pictures to the National Gallery upon the terms that they should be permanently placed between two of Claude's, and as to those two pictures no question arose; the condition had always been performed. He also bequeathed his other pictures to the nation, and by a codicil he desired that a gallery should be erected for them, and that his pictures should form a separate collection, to be called the Turner Gallery. By the second codicil, dated in 1848, he gave his finished pictures, except the two previously mentioned, to the Trustees of the National Gallery provided that a room or rooms should be added to the present National Gallery, to be entitled "The Turner Gallery;" and the Trustees were not to have any power over the pictures unless his wishes were fully carried out by them. By a third codicil, also in 1848, he directed that if the Trustees of the National Gallery should not carry out the provisions of his will within five years then the bequest should be void; and by a fourth codicil, in 1849, he enlarged the term to ten years. He had no hesitation in saying that the Nation received these pictures subject to the legal obligation contained in the codicils. But there were higher obligations—moral obligation and national honour. The pictures were removed from the house in Queen Ann Street for fear of fire and for better preservation; but a question arose between Turner's relations and the Trustees of the National Gallery, and a decree made by Vice Chancellor Kindersley declared that all pictures, drawings, and sketches by Turner, whether finished or unfinished, were to be retained for the benefit of the public. This decree established the title of the Nation, but this title was clearly subject to the conditions of the will. It then became necessary to find a home for the pictures, and they were at first placed in Marlborough House, but subsequently another place was required for their reception, and a home was formed at South Kensington. To this arrangement he (Lard St. Leonards) could not object for a board was affixed to the gates of Marlborough House stating that the removal of the pictures to Kensington was only for a temporary purpose. The galleries in which the pictures were now exhibited were lighted by gas on certain evenings. Gas was well known to be highly explosive and other-

  1637
  wise dangerous, so that even if sufficient precautions had been taken to prevent injury to the paintings from the vapours of gas, still there remained a considerable amount of risk. No nation in the world possessed so large and so valuable a collection of paintings by one artist, and it would be a lasting reproach if those inestimable pictures were lost through any want of care. Mr. Ruskin, who, if no authority upon the subject of gas, must be admitted to be a high authority in art, hag written a letter to The Times, exonerating himself from all responsibility for the removal of the pictures to Kensington, and stating his belief that serious injury might be done to the pictures from being exposed to the influence of gas, the works of Turner and Reynolds being peculiarly liable to injury from that cause. Other authorities had expressed the opinion that the use of gas in picture galleries was attended with great risk. After the recent additions to the National Gallery of which he highly approved, he observed with regret that no attempt had been made to perform the undertaking of two successive Governments to which he had before referred. This, therefore, rendered his present inquiry necessary. When Turner had painted a picture which he thought ought to belong to the country no offer of money would induce him to sell it. In the case of the De Talby picture, now in the National Gallery, which had been sold, he bought it back upon Lord de Talby's death at a great price in order to leave it to the Nation, The value of the pictures was enormous, and what now remained to be done was that the Turner Gallery should be annexed to the National Gallery, as part of the possessions of the Nation, and they should be removed from Kensington without delay in order to comply with the conditions upon which the Nation holds them. He had ascertained most satisfactorily that a gallery could now be erected in direct communication with the existing building in Trafalgar Square, and he hoped that no real difficulties would be found to lie in the way of a public grant for the purpose.
  EARL GRANVILLEwas understood to say that he was quite sure the whole of their Lordships had a high admiration of the genius of Turner as a painter, and that they all appreciated the love of art displayed by the noble and learned Lord who had brought forward this subject. With respect to the will of the deceased artist, and the validity of the Nation's title to these
  1638
  pictures, those were points on which he did not feel himself competent to express an opinion, and which he would, therefore, leave to the proper legal authorities. As to the question of what was to be done with this collection, he must say it was at present placed in a building of a perfectly substantial character, and one admirably adapted for the purposes for which it was intended. It had been found, he believed, as perfect as any gallery in Europe for the display of pictures. Several plans had been suggested for providing accommodation for these pictures, but those plans had not yet been fully inquired into, and it would, therefore, be premature to express an opinion on the subject. Then, with regard to the question of the safety of the collection, he must say he did not agree with the apprehensions that had been expressed on that head. He believed this valuable collection was as safe as any pictures could be; and as to their being exhibited by gaslight, immense advantage resulted from that arrangement. The paintings were thereby-showed in a manner in which they had never been seen before, their beauties were well brought out, and open to the inspection of classes of persons who could not visit them except in the evening. In the opinion of Mr. Faraday, Mr. Tindal, and other eminent authorities, not the slightest damage or danger to the pictures need be apprehended from the manner in which the Kensington Museum was lighted. The pictures had all been recently carefully examined, and no injury whatever could be detected. Those from which photographs were taken had been examined only last month, and they were all found entirely free from injury. It was most creditable to the authorities at Kensington Museum that both in winter and summer the ventilation had been of a most perfect character, a good and equable temperature being maintained: and some part of this good result was to be attributed to the assistance of gas in the ventilation. The recommendations of the noble and learned Lord, however, should receive every attention.
  LORD OVERSTONEwas anxious to say a few words on this subject. Their Lordships would easily understand that the Trustees of the National Gallery felt themselves placed in a somewhat embarrassing situation in consequence of the serious ambiguities which attached to the Turner Trust. He must beg to express his sincere thanks to the noble and learned Lord who had now a second time brought

  1639
  this subject distinctly under the notice of the Government, and he trusted under the serious consideration of their Lordships. He had listened to the statement of the noble and learned Lord with great attention and interest, and he wished that he could say that he had listened to the reply of his noble Friend the President of the Council with more unmixed satisfaction. With regard to the general question of these donations and bequests of pictures made to the country he thought it most important, on various grounds, that the Nation should exhibit the most strict and scrupulous fidelity in carrying out the presumed wishes and intentions of the testators. That was necessary on account of the moral effect which must result from such public example of good faith; and, in a secondary sense, it was of great importance as an encouragement to future collectors and lovers of the fine arts, who, stimulated by such noble examples, might be disposed to follow them, and add to the magnificent collection this country already possesses by donations of a similar character. With regard to the particular question now before their Lordships, he expressed the feeling of the whole country when he said it was impossible to speak of Turner's gift to the Nation in too high terms. It was a noble gift—at once a monument of the high point to which British art has been carried in our day, and of what might be accomplished by one man in whom' the great gift of genius was improved and carried out by his own persevering industry and indomitable energy. There was, no doubt, some ambiguity in Mr. Turner's will. He was of a peculiar temperament, and perhaps sensitive in his feelings and wishes as to the mode in which his bequest should be carried out; but, notwithstanding the doubts which had been thrown on the purport of his will, he thought that any one who should faithfully and honourably endeavour to elicit the real Irish and intention of the testator would encounter no great difficulty in arriving at it. He entertained not the slightest doubt that the ambition by which Mr. Turner Was actuated was to demonstrate to the British nation that his works had a right to be brought into immediate contact, comparison, and competition, not merely with the highest productions of his own fellow-countrymen and age, but with the great works of the old and established masters. That this was his principle and wish might be inferred from the fact that the two pic-
  1640
  tures alluded to by the noble and learned Lord now hanging in the National Gallery had been bequeathed distinctly on the condition that they should be hung between the two great pictures by Claude, so that their merits might be put to the severest test by the comparison. Would any man say this was not a noble aspiration? had England any ground to be disssatisfied with the competitive examination, as he might term it, that Turner had instituted? It was an honorable rivalship and might it not be confidently said that to whomsoever the first prize should be awarded the second place might be held without discredit? Having so disposed of these two pictures, and coming to deal with that larger collection of works of art which had proceeded from his single hand, how did Mr. Turner proceed? Amid all ambiguities it was quite clear that he intended these pictures to be given to the Nation, and to be received as a solemn trust; that they should be placed in a gallery by themselves—a gallery to be distinguished and known by his own name, and that the gallery so erected should be in immediate contact with the great National Gallery—still looking to a comparison of his works with the collected works of art in the country. It was for their Lordships and for his noble Friend the President of the Council, who spoke on behalf of the country, to consider whether the present Apartments at Kensington did really carry out the intentions of the donor. It seemed that this collection of Turner's works bad been placed side by side with that given to the country by Mr. Sheepshanks. There was this difference, however, between the two donations. Mr. Sheepshanks, who was no artist himself, had formed a miscellaneous collection of pictures, the productions of artists of the present time, and his magnificent gift was expressly stated to be for the purpose of affording facilities of study to students of art, and with this view it was not to be placed in the hands of any body of trustees but to remain under the control and responsibility of a Minister of the Crown. It was to be specially placed on the site at Kensington, purchased in 1851, and where a School of Art was established. By the arrangements now existing the noble and honourable purpose of Mr. Sheepshanks was fully and faithfully carried out. The gallery of Mr. Vernon, to all appearance, was under the same regulations as that of Mr. Sheepshanks. But the views and di-

  1641
  rections of Mr. Turner were the opposite of all this. The gallery was to be marked by his own name, and no allusion was made by him to schools of art or purposes of study in juxtaposition to the National Gallery for the purpose of direct comparison with the great works of art there assembled was the one predominant feeling and wish indicated in Turner's will. Indeed, he would say that, in proportion as the existing arrangements did full and faithful justice to the terms of the Sheepshanks' donation they failed to do justice to those of Mr. Turner. He believed that if Mr. Turner could have foreseen the present state of things he would have reverted to one of his earlier codicils and would have ordered his pictures to be sold, the proceeds to be placed, perhaps, at the command of the Royal Academy, or some analogous institution. He trusted, however, that the Government would recognize the obligation to carry out the obvious meaning of the will, and that the time was not far distant when the pictures would be placed in a gallery of their own attached to the National Gallery. The question was one which concerned the public honour and good faith and the encouragement of future donors, and he hoped that some arrangement different from that which now exists, and more consonant with the conditions under which the bequest was accepted by the Nation would before long be adopted.
  LORD MONTEAGLEwas glad to hear from the Lord President of the Council that the Turner pictures were never so well seen as at present. He was afraid, however, that they ran considerable risk of being destroyed. For his own part, he entertained the greatest apprehensions whenever there was an exhibition by night, and he doubted whether private individuals would expose their collections to the same danger.
  THE EARL OF ELLESMEREsaid, he was not, from the experience of his own pictures, of opinion that gas was either so dangerous or deleterious as had been represented. Some danger there might he, but not more than could be easily guarded against.

THE PEERS' ROBING ROOM.
LORD REDESDALErose to move the Appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the Progress made in the Wall Paintings of the Peers' Robing Room, and to report when the Room will be ready for Occupation; or in what Manner, if the
1642
Paintings are not likely to be completed shortly, the Room may be rendered available for the Use of the House during the Sitting of Parliament. He found from a Report presented to the other House of Parliament that so little progress had been made with the paintings in the Robing Room that, unless some pressure were put upon the artist, their Lordships would continue to be deprived of the use of the apartment in question for a long time to come. The first engagement with Mr. Herbert, whom he highly respected for hit talent, was made in 1851. There were to be nine paintings in the Robing Room, for which the artist was to receive £9,000. Of that sum £1,000 was paid in 1851. Although the room had been delivered up for considerably more than three years, there was no certainty as to the time when the pictures would be completed. A Committee of the other House had inquired and reported, and he could see no objection to a Committee of this House, which was much more deeply interested, being appointed. He wished it to be distinctly understood that, except a general complaint of the dilatory progress of the artists, he made no imputation upon them. He desired to consult their convenience, but he thought it not impossible to afford some accommodation to their Lordships while the cartoons were being painted. As not one of the nine paintings was completed, it was obvious that the Peers would never have a chance of getting into the room unless some steps were taken to show a desire on their part for its occupation. The noble Lord concluded by moving the appointment of the Committee.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he should be very sorry if the appointment of the Committee should be supposed to reflect in the slightest degree upon the artists. It was not sufficient to pay a just tribute to English artists—it was their Lordships' duty to encourage those men who were most likely to carry the reputation of British art to a very high degree. As far as Mr. Herbert was concerned, he had shown a most laudable disinterestedness by refusing magnificent offers to paint pictures for private persons. It was only in 1858 that Mr. Herbert was placed in possession of the room, and 400 feet of painting had been destroyed by his own hand, because, although others were perfectly satisfied, he was not himself satisfied with the result. He believed that it had cost Mr. Herbert more than £3,000, and he thought

1643
this a fact very creditable to him. At the same time, it was quite clear that their Lordships ought not to be put to unreasonable inconvenience, and on that account, as well as for the sake of Mr. Herbert himself, it was desirable to appoint the Committee. Entering into the spirit in which the noble Lord had proposed his Motion he should readily agree to it.
Motion agreed to.
Select Committee appointed.
And on the Morrow the Lords following were named of the Committee:—

Ld. Privy Seal.

L. Redesdale.

M. Bath.

L. Colchester.

E. St. Germans.

L. Wynford.

V. Sydney.

L. Elgin.

V. Hardinge.

L. Overstone.

V. Eversley.

L. Taunton.

L. Colville of Culross.

House adjourned at Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.