Sir, it is not necessary for me to detain the House at any length in explaining the reasons why I think it desirable to postpone the consideration of the Savings Banks Bill until the opening of next Session. As, however, not a single word has yet been said upon the subject of this important Bill, and as it has been allowed, at my request and by the favour of the House, to pass through several of its stages, and to be reprinted without any explanation of its provisions, perhaps it is right that I should state, in a very few words, how the matter stands. The great evil with respect to the present condition of savings banks is not so much any gross, or flagrant, or glaring abuse connected with them, as the want of that "perfect" security which every one must feel that they ought to afford. If we look at the enormous amount of money deposited in the various savings banks, and then take the mere figures which represent the total losses that have been incurred by depositors, no doubt the amount of those losses in relation to the total deposited is very insignificant; but the evil that is done in particular cases is unfortunately not to be measured by the actual amount of money loss. There is an amount of evil such as figures can convey no idea of; and, besides, it is impossible that the public confidence in those institutions can be that which it ought to be while those losses are liable to occur at all. What Parliament should desire to secure is, not that those losses should be rare, but that they should be altogether unknown—that no such thing should be allowed to take place. That being so, the question arises, how can that absolute security which is so essential be given? There is no doubt that where a body of trustees such as most of the body of trustees of savings banks are, could be induced to give their own unlimited personal security, that would afford safety to the depositors. But it is hardly reasonable to expect that they should be found willing to give that absolute security. If it were, Parliament might be glad that there should be no further intervention of Government, and I need not then trouble you with minute details, or endeavour to introduce any sensible degree of Government control. That, however, is not to be looked for as a general rule. Then, there is but one other way of giving an absolute security to the depositors, and that is by affording them that which is the best that can be given in this country—namely, the guarantee of the Government. But it will be admitted on all hands that if the guarantee of the Government should be given to those depositors, it could only be upon very distinct and definite grounds; and I am bound to express at once my dissent from the proposition which has been put forward by the managers of savings banks—not generally, but in certain quarters—that the Government guarantee should be given to depositors, the security taken by the Government in return being the appointment of auditors to the savings banks. I do not hesitate to say that I believe if I were to make a proposition to the House of Commons, the House of Commons would reject it; but at the same time I must frankly and openly say, that nothing would induce me to make such a proposition. It is absolutely necessary, if the guarantee of the State is to be given to the depositors in savings banks, that the State should have a sufficient control over the receipt and the payment of the money itself—not merely the power of calling for accounts at certain intervals, but control over the receipt and payment of the money itself. And that cannot be had without the full control of the Government over some person in the banks who shall be a party to every receipt and every payment. That is the fundamental principle of the Bill, though, as I have previously intimated, the Government would be too happy to leave a door Open to trustees becoming responsible if they thought fit. We have further introduced into the Bill a provision to enable trustees who may object to unlimited responsibility, but are willing to subject themselves to a limited responsibility, to make arrangements with the Government, to that effect, so that they may give their personal security to such an extent as, though limited, might be sufficient to cover the risk. This will relate to existing banks only. We do not propose to have any new banks formed on that principle, but it is a provision which I have introduced in consideration of the fact that the system exists, and that we must endeavour to deal with it as we best can. Looking to the measure as a whole, no doubt the practical and operative part of the Bill is this—the granting of the Government guarantee to depositors on the one hand, and the establishing of an effectual control on the other, I do not say over the whole management of the bank, but over every act of the receipt and payment of money. This is one of the questions which I think, by judicious management, we may contrive to settle in a great degree out of this House. The taxes upon the time of Parliament are so heavy, the demands of the various wants of this great Empire come upon us in such number and weight, that though the labours of this house, I apprehend, far exceed those of any legislative assembly the world ever knew, yet still we feel from year to year that we are behind our work. Therefore, a great and real advantage will be secured if with regard to a question of this kind, of great importance, interesting directly millions of people, we can contrive to save the labours of the House by arranging the details in communication with the parties out of doors. With that view it was that I asked permission of the House to be allowed to carry this Bill through a preliminary Committee without discussion. The effect of that has been, I am happy to say, to enable me to make great and successful attempts for reducing the provisions of this Bill into form without troubling the House, and to acquire, I believe, a pretty accurate knowledge of the state of feeling on this subject throughout the country. Certainly, on comparing the tone of the communications which I now daily receive from the managers of savings banks with the tone of those which I used to receive when the Bill was first printed, I think I may venture to say that I have made great progress with the measure. And I think that that which I have just described as the principle of the Bill—namely, the concession on the one hand of the guarantee of the State, and the taking, on the other, by the State of an effectual control through the medium of an officer of the bank over the receipt and payment of money, is generally recognised and approved throughout the country. I do not by any means say universally, but generally. At the same time, Sir, there are many other provisions in the Bill which are important, and two of them particularly so. One relates to the rate of interest to be allowed to depositors, and the other to the responsibility which is proposed to be imposed by the 78th clause upon trustees in regard to the accounts which they are to hand over to the Government. It must be obvious to the House, when the Government are going to undertake a responsibility to the depositors in respect of deposits already lodged, that we must have the amount of those deposits ascertained for us by some one who shall be responsible to us, and that we can undertake no responsibility to the depositors except in regard to the liabilities of the bank which are certified to us in that manner. The 78th clause, it should be clearly understood, does not raise any question between the Government and the trustees, but simply between the trustees and the depositors. It is admitted on all hands that the State cannot undertake any responsibility, except in the case of deposits, of the amount of which we are apprised beforehand; and the whole question is, whether the trustees or managers of savings banks shall or shall not be responsible to the depositors in respect of deposits which they do not include in the list which they hand to the Government—deposits which are omitted by any cause, either by the carelessness, the negligence, or the fraud of the officers, it not signifying which. That is a point at present in discussion, and I think it is exactly one of such a nature that the interval of the recess may enable us to hit upon some mode of proceeding which shall be satisfactory to all parties. I must always beg the House to bear in mind, however, with respect to this difficult clause, that there is no question between the Government and the trustees involved in it. The only question is, shall we say to the trustees, "You must be responsible to those depositors whose names you omit;" or shall we say to the depositors, "You must each of you take care to see that the proper amount of your deposit is included in the list handed over to the Government liability to you." With respect to the question of the rate of interest, I will not enter into it now, because, after all, it is more a question of policy for the House to consider, than one which is to be arranged between the Government and the trustees. In addition to that great question, there are a variety of minor points in the Bill, which, dealing as it does with a complicated system, necessarily enters into a good deal of detail. I think some inconvenience might arise at this period of the Session, which has already lasted from the beginning of November, if we attempted to settle those points in the House; and I fear if we attempted to do so, either that the Bill might fail to pass, or that the Session would be inconveniently prolonged, or, what would be worse than all, that it might give rise to the suggestion that we had passed the Bill without devoting to it that care and attention which its importance merited. Upon all these grounds, although I am very anxious for immediate legislation if it could have been had, I have come to the conclusion that our end will be most speedily attained if I now propose that the House resolve itself into Committee upon this Bill on this day three months.

said, he ventured to express an earnest hope that this subject would be again brought forward at the very earliest period next Session. It was now four years ago since the question of savings banks was inquired into by a Committee of that House; that Committee reported that the law required amendment, land it was, therefore, to be regretted that Government had not taken the question up much earlier. Next Session the House, it was well known, would be involved in discussions on Parliamentary reform, and he, therefore, hoped that the very first measure introduced next year, would be the Savings Banks Bill, so that the House might make progress with it before they reached more exciting, but certainly not more important, questions. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that he did not believe that there had been any gross or fatal mismanagement in these institutions; but he, for one, was hardly inclined to concur in that statement. There could, however, be no doubt of this—that the existing state of things was most unsatisfactory. Previous to the year 1844 the trustees were responsible for all the deposits; but in 1844 they were relieved from that responsibility—a measure which he heartily concurred in, because when these institutions were first established it was anticipated that the deposits would never reach more than 11,000,000l., whereas in 1844 they amounted to something like 28,000,000l., while now they amounted to 30,000,000. Everybody must allow that this was by far too serious a liability to rest upon individual trustees; but, at the same time, when Parliament came to the conclusion to relieve the trustees from the liability, it was the duty of that House to have devised some other means for securing the depositors against loss. As it was, it now appeared that the depositors had been left almost without security, and while this insecurity lasted, how could they expect the public to have confidence in savings banks? As well might they ask them to entrust their deposits to a private banker, who held himself irresponsible for the repayment of the money. No question, then, could come before Parliament of more importance than this. True, it was not an exciting topic like Parliamentary reform, but it involved the social interests of the people; and he hoped another Session would not be allowed to pass without its being satisfactorily settled.

thought that his right hon. Friend had laid sufficient grounds for deferring this Bill till next Session, though he much regretted the necessity for such delay, considering, as he did, that the Bill was a measure of great importance. Several petitions had been presented against the Bill; some of which, emanating from trustees and managers, were entitled to consideration. But there were others which should be viewed with some degree of suspicion. He meant those which were got up by the paid officials of different banks, who, in some instances, looked naturally to their own interests—who particularly disliked the limit which might be placed upon their salaries. His right hon. Friend had referred in the course of his speech to two very important provisions in the Bill—the necessity for the fullest security that would be afforded to the depositors, and the rate of interest to be allowed. But there was another provision in the Bill, to which his right hon. Friend had not alluded, but which he ventured to think was very important; and that was, the amount which ought to be set apart to defray the expenses of management, which must necessarily be paid by the Government, and must, therefore, affect the amount of interest to be given to the depositors. The sums now deducted for management from the 3l. 5s. per cent, allowed as interest by the Government, varied considerably; in some banks the amount returned was most moderate, in others most excessive. In illustration of the necessity for some provision, he begged to instance the case of a savings bank in this town, the name of which he should be perfectly ready to give to any hon. Member who might wish to have it. The receipts of that bank in the shape of deposits amounted to between 90,000l. and 100,000l. a year, and it paid out about 80,000l.; so that between 10,000l. and 12,000l—an always increasing sum—annually went to the general fund, which at present amounted to about 365,000l. The cost of the establishment of that bank was, in salaries, 1,458l.; in rent and taxes, 211l.; and allowance to manager for coals and candles, 109l. a year. In addition to this, the trustees had actually taken a house with a lease of only forty years to run, and they had expended no less a sum than 6,000l. upon the repairs of that house. This, he contended, was for the benefit of the manager, so that, taking the interest upon the capital sum, and allowing for the loss of that capital, which he (Sir B. Hall) could not estimate at less than 500l. a year more, he estimated the cost of the establishment, independently of printing, law, and incidental expenses, at 2,280l. a year. For that 6,000l. which the managers had laid out upon a house with a forty years' lease, they might have obtained one of the best mansions in the district in which the bank was situated. What had been the consequence of that gross extravagance and outlay, as he must term it? There were 18,612 depositors, whose deposits did not average above 30l. each, and the present amount of their deposits was about 83,000l. Would the house believe that out of the 3l. 5s. per cent which the Government allowed by way of interest, no less than 1l. 5s. was deducted from the interest paid to the small depositors, while that which made it more gross was, that from the larger depositors of 100l. and upwards, there was only a deduction of 7s. 7¼d. per cent? When his right hon. Friend stated that the two important provisions of the Bill were to provide a responsible guarantee for the deposits, and to determine the rate of interest to be paid, he was glad that he had taken into consideration by his Bill the important question of the cost of management. His right hon. Friend had raised the scale from 6s. 8d. to 7s. 6d. This latter he thought to be an ample sum, and he trusted that his right hon. Friend would not be induced, either by petitions from managers, or by other considerations, to raise it; but that if the Government should find it consistent with their duty to allow a larger sum than 2l. 17s. 6d. per cent for interest and cost of management, the surplus might be given to those who, by care and good management of their little incomes, had become depositors in the banks.

said, he must deprecate the introduction of isolated cases at this stage of the discussion. He regretted that the hon. Baronet (Sir B. Hall) had instanced a particular case. It was one which was well known to himself, and he believed he could give an ample answer to to the charge. There were a vast number of unusually small depositors in that bank, and it was known that the keeping of a number of small accounts was more expensive than the keeping of a few large ones. If any injustice were done to any party, it was, in his opinion, rather to the larger than the smaller depositors. There was a perfect answer to the charge of expending 6,000l. upon the house, but he did not think it desirable to enter into it at present. With regard to the Bill itself, be was glad to find that Government did not intend to persevere with it, because if they had done so, there would have been no alternative left to the majority of the trustees but to resign. Many of them, in fact, had announced their intention of doing so if the Bill passed; and he did think that it was high time that a stop was put to these experimental Bills, which being brought forward just to see which way the wind blew, were productive of infinite mischief to all classes, and more particularly to the interests of savings banks. He was not going then to enter into any discussion of the details of this Bill; but he must be permitted to tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer that when he talked of what the Government intended to do in this matter, he should make up his mind as to the meaning of the word "Government." Now what was the Government in this case? Why, it was supposed to be the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, who held their offices ex officio; but the Commission being composed of persons like Mr. Speaker, the Master of the Rolls, and the Chief Baron of the Exchequer, they were never called upon to perform any active duty. All they had to do was to meet about four days in the year, for the purpose of adjusting the surplus income applicable to the reduction of the National Debt. Now, how was it possible for these gentlemen to attend to the interests of 600 savings banks? They could not possibly do it; but it too often happened that transactions were carried on in their names which were not strictly legal. For instance, the other day they were told that in the name of these Commissioners large sums received through the savings banks had been invested in the purchase of of Exchequer Bills. This was done on the sole authority of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but inasmuch as by law the Commissioners had only power to invest such money in stock, he contended that it was impolitic, if not illegal, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be it liberty to deal with the disposal of the funds just as he thought fit. Parliament ought to look closely into this branch of the subject, for it would not only be mischievous and dangerous, but unconstitutional, to leave the 30,000,000l. of savings banks deposits to be invested in the manner which best suited the convenience of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

was as anxious as any one to see an efficient Savings Banks Bill passed, and begged to express his readiness to discuss the question at length were it to be proceeded with this Session; but he deprecated further discussion with regard to it under the present circumstances, when the Bill was actually withdrawn.

said, he concurred in this view, and would urge the House to proceed with the important Irish measures which stood upon the business paper. Unless those Bills were got on with, he really did not know when he should be able to give another day to them.

said, he also concurred in this view, and begged to thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the steps which he had taken to amend the Bill, and to obtain the sentiments of the public with regard to it. If the Bill had not been withdrawn; or, had it been passed in its present shape, the trustees of the Cork Savings Bank would have been compelled to resign.

said, that in the case of the bank referred to by the hon. Baronet the Member for Marylebone, the number of depositors whose deposits were under 30l. were 81 per cent of the whole; the costs of management being 1l. 5s. per cent. Now, in the bank of an adjoining district, the number of depositors under 30l. were only 75 per cent of the whole, and yet the deduction for the cost of management was only 6s. 3d. per cent. He had no wish to oppose the principle of this Bill, although he objected to some of its details; and he would suggest, with the view to the removal of his own and all similar objections, that the Bill should be referred again to a Select Committee next Session.

said, that when the Bill was again brought forward, he should move that the Government guarantee be made retrospective, as well as prospective, at least so far as the Cuffe-street savings bank in Dublin was concerned.

said, that, as the surviving trustee of a savings bank, he was not sorry to hear that the Bill was not to be persevered with this Session, as it was quite impossible to do the subject justice at this late period of the year.

said, he begged to ask the noble Lord the Member for the City of London, as it had been stated by the Government that a great number of British merchant ships are detained in the Danube in consequence of the state of that river, which had been produced by the neglect of the Government of Russia to discharge that which had been described by a Minister of the Crown as a great duty owed by Russia to Europe; and, as great loss must be occasioned to British merchants by the detention of those ships, whether Government would demand from the Czar compensation to those merchants for the loss inflicted upon them by the culpable neglect of the Russian Government; also, as it had been stated by the Government that repeated representations have been made to the Government of Russia respecting the interruption of the navigation of the Danube, whether the noble Lord would have any objection to lay upon the table of the House copies of the correspondence on the subject?

said, he doubted whether merchants would have any claim for compensation on the ground stated by the noble Lord, because, although the Russian Government had not taken proper precautions respecting the navigation of the Danube—which we had a right to expect from it—yet natural causes had very much tended to obstruct the navigation of that river. An accumulation of mud had accrued at the mouth of the river, which had caused the waters to overflow the banks and inundate the country for several miles round. According to the latest accounts, it appeared that the obstruction had been to some extent removed, and there were now several feet more water at the mouth of the river. In answer to the second question, he could state that the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Department had directed the correspondence to be examined, with the view of ascertaining whether any portion of it could be laid before Parliament.

said, that he had a petition to present from a committee of the electors of Peterborough, with reference to the question which he had brought before the House a few nights ago. The petitioners desired to represent to the House the state of political commotion in which their constituency had been kept for a long time past. They said that they had had three contested elections since last July, and it was not impossible that they might have another very shortly. They stated that great injury would be sustained if the inquiry which they prayed for should be postponed; that a postponement to next Session would practically amount to a denial of justice. They did not think the fact that a petition was now pending with respect to one of the Members for Peterborough should interfere with an inquiry into a case of so grave a nature; and they, therefore, prayed that the House would allow a Select Committee to be forthwith appointed. In moving the instruction he now begged to propose, he should not have added a sentence had it not been for what had taken place a few evenings ago, when the hon. Members for Malton and Northampton objected to the course he proposed to take. The offence, however, to which his Motion had reference, was considered by the rules of the House an offence of so grave a nature that he was permitted then, and he was permitted now, to bring forward this subject before the other business, as involving a charge of interference with the privileges of the House, and with the rights of the constituencies by whom hon. Members were sent to that House. Both the hon. Member for Malton (Mr. E. Denison), and the right hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. V. Smith), seemed to think there was some connexion between the petition, praying for the inquiry now proposed, and a petition on behalf of one of the defeated candidates. He (Mr. Bright) did not see the least connexion between the two petitions. The question with respect to Mr. Whalley related to his qualification. The one was a question of law, the other was a great question affecting the rights and franchises of the people of Peterborough as against the domination and influence of a Member of the other House of Parliament. The noble Lord the Member for the City of London referred the other evening to the Durham petition; but he understood that the reason why the House refused to allow the prayer of that petition till the election petition had been disposed of was, that it was believed to have been presented mainly with the object of leading to a withdrawal of the petition against Lord Adolphus Vane—one of those operations which the unfortunate system adopted by that House allowed to be carried on. That case was, however, quite different from the one now before the House; and if there could be a doubt on the subject, be would refer to the circumstances attending the Derby election in December last. A petition was presented from Derby, complaining of the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman who was then Secretary at War. That petition was presented on the 29th of November, and a Select Committee was appointed on the same day. The Committee commenced its sittings on the 1st of December, and reported to the House on the 16th of the same month. The election petition against the return of the Members for Derby was presented on the 22nd of November, seven days earlier than the petition against the Secretary at War; but, nevertheless, the House took up the petition against the Secretary at War first. The Committee was appointed, the case inquired into, and the whole matter disposed of. That was an infinitely stronger case in his favour than anything that could be urged against him on the ground of the Durham case. When the Derby petition was before the House, the noble Lord the Member for the City of London said—

"If any specific case of bribery could be alleged against a person holding the high office of Privy Councillor, and it was only to be inquired into by an Election Committee, he thought the Grenville Act would be a great evil, as barring the House from the performance of one of the greatest functions it could perform, and which ought not to be set aside."—[3 Hansard, cxxiii. 749.]

Now, in the present instance, Earl Fitzwilliam was alleged to have paid certain sums of money to scot and lot voters in Peterborough, and it was further alleged that head-money was paid or withheld just as the electors voted for or against the candidates whom he favoured. The Act of Parliament declared head-money to be bribery; but he did not press this as a case of bribery against Earl Fitzwilliam, but a case of undue interference by a great territorial proprietor and a Member of the House of Lords with the franchise of the electors, and he did not think the House could object to the instruction which he was about to move. The presentation of the petition had only been delayed from delicacy of feeling, as it was not desired to bring it forward till the election petition against Mr. Whalley had been disposed of; and Mr. Whalley himself, with a regard to propriety which he was afraid very few Members, when their seats were in jeopardy, would have shown, was himself opposed to its being presented at that time. It was not, therefore, presented previous to his last election. It must be borne in mind that if this instruction was not passed, and the Committee appointed, it could not be appointed till the next Session of Parliament. The Committee could not be named before the 5th of August. It could not begin its sittings before the 10th, and there was a rumour, which he hoped was well founded, that the House would be up on the 18th of August. If, therefore, the Committee was now denied, it would be tantamount to a denial of justice to the electors of Peterborough, who, if an election occurred in the course of next year, might be again subjected to all the influences and inconveniences of which they complained. There was nothing in this petition that had reference to Mr. Whalley, but they complained generally that they suffered severely in their interests by the influence exerted over them. He asked the House, then, not to delay doing justice to these petitioners.

said, notwithstanding the speech of the hon. Member for Manchester, he still entertained very great objections to the course now recommended to the House. It might be desirable that inquiry should some time or other be instituted into the allegations that had been brought forward; but when there was a petition at this moment pending be- fore the House relating to the proceedings that had taken place at the late election for Peterborough, he thought it would be, inexpedient to appoint another Committee to take into consideration the same, or nearly the same, proceedings. The Derby Committee had been referred to by the hon. Member (Mr. Bright); but he had felt strong objections to the appointment of that Committee, and, had he been in the House, would have stated those objections at the time the appointment was made. He had the misfortune to serve on that Committee, and he must say the Committee felt that there was great difficulty in considering the immediate question submitted to them without taking into their consideration other matters from which they wished to abstain—matter which were subsequently submitted to another Committee. He believed he was speaking the sentiments of the Member of that Committee, when he said that they would object to the appointment of any Committee under similar circumstance. There was no particular pressure. This petition had been very properly postponed till after the first election was disposed of. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Whalley) was unseated for Peterborough on the 8th of June, and surely there was ample time between that and the 20th for the presentation of the petition, without prejudicing an interest whatever. He did not see the any great inconvenience could be experienced by delaying this Committee till another Session. He could perfectly under stand that the noble Earl himself felt desirous that the Committee should be appointed at the earliest possible period to investigate the charges brought against him; but it was for the House to consider whether it was fitting or not that such a Committee should be appointed under present circumstances; and he hoped they would come to the decision that such a course would be highly inexpedient.

said, he had been in the first instance intrusted with the presentation of this petition, but had induced the petitioners, after consultation with Mr. Speaker, to consent to its postponement till after the Committee had decided upon the first election. The petition now came after that election had been disposed of and a new election had taken place, and he thought it ought to be entertained by the House. This, in his opinion, was not a petition against Lord Fitzwilliam, but against certain practices in that borough, from which the electors alleged they sustained great injury. Having sat along with Lord Fitzwilliam in that House for many years, and always found him an advocate for reform and the people's rights, he was not disposed to look upon this as a question directed against him, but as one affecting the rights of every constituency in the kingdom. He thought there would not only be no inconvenience in the appointment of a Committee, but that the time had come when inquiry ought, without any delay, to be instituted.

said, he entertained a strong objection to the appointment of the Committee at the present time, and thought the matter might be much more effectually and satisfactorily inquired into in another Session. He was not at all responsible for the precedent which had been referred to, for he protested against the appointment of the Derby Committee, because the appointment of a Committee under the Grenville Act, and the appointment of another Committee at the same time, to make a loose kind of inquiry, was very likely to interfere with the administration of justice. In the Derby case, the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) advocated immediate inquiry, on the ground that there was an accusation against a Minister of the Crown holding a seat in the House of Commons. It had been said that this case was not like the Durham case, in which case the petition was presented for the purpose of stifling an inquiry into the election, He was willing to believe that to be the fact; but if a precedent should now be set, it was impossible to say what might occur in other cases. He thought it better to adhere to the ordinary rule, and not allow anything to interfere with the inquiry under the Grenville Act; and therefore he could not consent to the Motion.

said, that the more he considered the question, the more he felt that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. V. Smith) was right in the caution which he gave the House against appointing this Committee while a petition was pending relating to election matters for the same borough. The gravamen of the charge which was made against Earl Fitzwilliam, in connexion with the case before the House, was, that he had exercised an undue degree of interference in the election for the borough of Peterborough, which took place in July, 1852. Now, he asked, was there, or was there not, at that very moment a petition under consideration which complained of the return of one of the Members at that election?—

said, he must beg to interrupt the hon. Baronet. The hon. Baronet seemed to be proceeding upon the assumption that the petition from the electors of Peterborough complained that undue influence had been exercised by Lord Fitzwilliam at the election, with respect to which a petition had just been presented against the hon. Member near him (Mr. Whalley). The hon. Member, however, was wrong in making that supposition.

In point of fact the allegations contained in the petition presented by the hon. Member for Manchester were allegations that might be discussed and decided by an Election Committee, whether the circumstances upon which they were founded had taken place in July, 1852, or in the month of December, 1853. If any person could prove to him that the question with reference to those allegations could not be decided by an Election Committee, then he was ready to admit that his arguments fell to the ground. Believing, however, that that could not be proved, he should resist the Motion of the hon. Member for Manchester.

Sir, the allegations contained in this petition, as I understand them, do not relate to the same matter as those contained in the petition against the return of the hon. Member for Peterborough. I take it for granted that we all agree upon this principle—that when two petitions are presented relating to the same subject-matter, one requiring the appointment of a Select Committee where the evidence will not be taken upon oath, and the other being sent to an ordinary Election Committee, where the evidence will be taken upon oath, the former petition ought not to be allowed to proceed until the second has been disposed of; and, indeed, it is extremely questionable whether it ought to be permitted to proceed at all. Thus far all will admit, and therefore the present question is, do these two petitions relate to the same subject-matter? One—the petition presented by the hon. Member for Manchester—is a petition on the part of certain non-electors of Peterborough, complaining that there has been a breach of the privileges of this House, inasmuch as a Peer of Parliament interfered with the election which took place in De- cember, 1852, with the election which took place in the preceding July, and with former elections. The other—that against the return of the present Member for Peterborough—is a petition not relating to the elections of 1852, in any sense except one. The sense in which it relates to the election of December, 1852, is this. In that election the present sitting Member was alleged to have been guilty of treating and bribing. The matter was referred to an ordinary Election Committee, who reported that Mr. Whalley had been guilty of treating, and who declared the election to be void. A new writ consequently was directed to be issued, and upon the issue of that writ notice was served upon the electors of Peterborough, that, since Mr. Whalley had had his election declared void on the ground that he had been guilty of treating, he was disqualified from standing again for that town, or from taking his seat in time event of his being re-elected. Notwithstanding this, the hon. Gentleman has been returned again, and hence the present petition against him. It appears to me that only two questions can arise upon that petition. The first is, whether in point of law he is capable of sitting for Peterborough, having been found guilty by a Committee of this House of the offence of treating. That is simply and solely a question of law, which cannot require a Committee to go into any question of fact with reference to the last election, still less can it require a Committee to go into any question of fact with reference to the allegation of a Peer of Parliament having infringed the privileges of this House by interfering with the elections of 1852. If the case stands thus, as I apprehend it does, I think there can be no doubt as to the course we should pursue. But there is this further allegation in the petition against the return of the hon. Member for Peterborough—that, inasmuch as he was guilty of bribery at the election in December, 1852, he is disqualified from sitting for Peterborough now, even although the Committee did not find that he had been guilty of bribery, either by himself or by his agents, at that election. Upon that allegation I will not presume to give a positive opinion—that is the duty of the Election Committee; but it certainly would be somewhat startling if, when a Committee has decided upon the merits of an election petition, and has not found that the person whose seat is assailed was guilty of bribery, you should be allowed at any subsequent period to go into allegations of bribery which took place at some prior election. I think, therefore, we may treat the petition against the return of the hon. Member for Peterborough in the other sense—that it is a petition challenging the return of that Gentleman upon a legal point. If that be so, I apprehend the question which arises before the House is not one of conflict between the two petitions. The one is a question of law, the other a question of fact. Two instances have been referred to, one being the case Of the Derby election, the other that of the Durham election. In the Derby case, the ground upon which the Government consented to the appointment of a Committee was principally the fact that certain grave charges were brought against a Minister of the Crown and a Privy Councillor, that Privy Councillor expressing his wish in this House that the petition should be proceeded with. Under these circumstances thought—I still think, that when a grave charge is brought against a Minister of the Crown, it is in the power of this House, independently of the right which it would have under the Statute, to inquire into the manner of an election, without waiting for an Election Committee to be appointed it the usual way. The more I think on the proceedings in the Derby case, the more I am convinced that the House was justified in taking the course it did, although at the same time there were undoubtedly some inconveniences attending it. The Durham case very much resembled the present—more so than the Derby case. In that, case the Select Committee sought for was postponed until the Election Committee had made its Report. That, I think, is the course which ought to be taken whenever questions of fact arise upon two petitions relating to the same subject-matter. But I have already shown that no question of fact can arise upon the petition against the return of the hon. Member for Peter borough which can be brought in conflict with any question of fact upon the petition presented by the hon. Member for Manchester. Now, what has the House done? You have already treated this question a one of privilege—you are now treating it as such—and having done so, and having actually granted the prayer of the petition, the only question we have to deter mine is, whether the Committee ought now to be appointed or not. Consider what would be the consequences of your not appointing the Committee now. Suppose the Election Committee should hold that the hon. Member for Peterborough is dis- qualified from sitting in this House, there must in that case be another election for Peterborough—

The seat is claimed by the defeated candidate.

That is true enough, but the Committee may not grant it, and, therefore, another election must take place. But what I was going to say, was this. We have already treated this as a question of privilege—we have granted the Committee sought for, and it now remains for us to determine whether we shall allow the inquiry to proceed now, upon the ground that the privileges of this House have been infringed. I think I have shown that no harm can result to the sitting Member from this inquiry, and your Sessional Orders declare that cases of privilege are entitled to take precedence of all other matters—I presume, because it is right that such cases should be inquired into without delay. If you do not grant this inquiry, and allow the Committee to be struck, having already agreed that there should be a Committee, you must necessarily postpone the investigation of a question of privilege till a distant period. Under these circumstances, although admitting that there are some difficulties in the case, I think we ought to allow the Committee to be struck in the present instance, and the inquiry to be proceeded with before the end of the present Session.

said, that the General Committee of Elections yesterday proceeded with the appointment of the Members to consider the last return for the borough of Peterborough, and though, undoubtedly, the main point was one of law, the petitioners nevertheless took wider ground, and claimed for themselves, if they did not receive a favourable solution of that point, the power of going into the transactions of the previous election, for the purpose of showing that the hon. Member (Mr. Whalley) was disqualified by the proceedings which then took place, from holding his seat during the present Parliament. He believed the House was agreed on the propriety of maintaining the principle of the Grenville Act, and of keeping questions relating to elections out of the body of that House, so that they might not be decided by the party which happened to have the majority. It appeared to him that these points were not fully considered when this matter was first brought before the House; but, after the course already adopted, considering, too, the late period of the Session, and that the Com- mittee had been already granted, he should say, speaking also as a personal friend of Earl Fitzwilliam, that the sooner the inquiry was made the better, and he, for one should give his vote in favour of the Motion of the hon. Member for Manchester.

I think, Sir the House was perfectly right in agreeing the other night, to appoint a Committee upon this subject. It is my opinion, that when you have a body of electors, or the inhabitants of a borough, complaining of acts of intimidation, and acts of bribery and treating, which prevent freedom of election, it is proper—unless there may be some impropriety in regard to the point of time—that the House should open its doors wide for the purpose of such inquiry I have always maintained that opinion, and have stated it when various Motions were brought before this House at different times. It is, undoubtedly, a very great inconvenience if the appointment of a Committee of this kind is found to interfere with that which is, in fact, the regular administration of justice under an Act of Parliament; and, I am sorry to say, that I cannot but think the House has been placed in the difficulty in which it finds itself upon the present occasion by the conduct of these petitioners. It is quite true, no doubt, that when the former election petition was before the House, it would not have been proper to have brought this petition forward, and to have asked us to appoint a Select Committee upon the subject to which it refers. But that Election Committee came to an end—they unseated the sitting Member—and it was then competent for those who, as I am told, had had the petition for many weeks in their possession, to present it to the House, and it was equally competent for the House some weeks ago to have entered upon this inquiry, and to have appointed the Committee now sought for. Instead of that, I know not whether this petition or the petition against the return of the sitting Member was presented first; at all events, they were presented nearly at the same time and this petition is brought under the consideration of the House at the moment that the election petition is about to be investigated in the due course of law. Undoubtedly, therefore, the petitioners do place this House in a considerable difficulty owing to the course they have pursued. The sitting Member has taken the blame upon himself, but he has given us no reason for his conduct upon that occasion, and I think that the petitioners themselves were bound, if they wanted the petition to be heard, to insist upon its being presented at an earlier period. But, Sir, this House having decided—and, as I think, properly decided—that there should be an inquiry into this subject, the question remains for us to consider, whether there is a greater inconvenience in appointing this Committee now, so that it may sit at the same time as the Election Committee, than if we were to postpone the inquiry till another Session. Now, I mentioned the other evening, that I believed the Election Committee would have only to consider whether the sitting Member was or was not disqualified by the decision of the previous Election Committee. It appears, however, that there is another allegation in the petition, and I certainly cannot go quite so far as the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who says that the Election Committee should be precluded from entering into that inquiry. I think it rests with them to decide whether they should enter into it or not. They may consider it unnecessary to enter into that inquiry, but I assuredly think the House ought not to interfere in the matter—

I distinctly stated that the question should be left to the decision of the Election Committee.

I thought the right hon. Gentleman could not intend to assert that the Election Committee should be precluded from inquiring into all the allegations contained in the petition. However that may be, it is not probable that the Election Committee, having decided the first and main point in the petition, would require to go into the other inquiry; so that we are not likely to have two inquiries into the same subject going on at the same time. The Election Committee will have to consider the question of qualification or disqualification of the sitting Member; but this Committee is to inquire into an entirely different subject. What is the subject upon which this inquiry is asked? I very much agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) in what he stated to the House; and, although we have certain Resolutions upon our books, I have always stated, that, in my opinion, there is no difference between an interference by a Peer and an interference by a Commoner; but I think that any gross interference with the freedom of election, whether by a Peer or a Commoner, should be made the subject of an inquiry by this House. It is alleged in this petition that several persons, whose names are given, tenants of Earl Fitzwilliam, have received notice to quit solely in consequence of their having exercised their franchise in opposition to the wishes of that nobleman, or abstained from voting for his favourite candidate. I think that is an allegation of a very gross interference with the freedom of election, and I do conceive there would be very great inconvenience if such an allegation against a noble Lord, highly respected by every one, but, at the same time, having considerable property, and, therefore, having the means of exercising such a power as is here alleged, were to be overlooked or postponed till another Session. That would be a great public inconvenience, and I, therefore, agree with the right hon. Gentleman opposite, that upon the whole—notwithstanding the inconvenience to which I have referred—the best course for the House to pursue is to direct an immediate inquiry to take place. At the same time, I hope that future petitioners will bring their cases of this kind at once before the House, and not defer them until the Election Committees have been appointed, because it is desirable that the House should, in ordinary circumstances, avoid the appointment of two Committees upon the same subject.

said, that finding the petition under consideration did not concern the seat of the sitting Member, he no longer saw any reason why the Committee now sought should not pursue its investigations concurrently with those of the Election Committee, whose inquiry was mainly directed to the alleged disqualification of the sitting Member, by reason of treating imputed to him at the election preceding the last. Unquestionably, it was expedient that, unless for some very important reason, the investigation of charge such as those advanced against Earl Fitzwilliam, should not remain in suspense until next Session.

said, he admitted that Earl Fitzwilliam was entitled to ask that these heavy charges should not be left banging over him until next Session; but at the same time he must express the decided opinion that this petition had been designed to prejudice the inquiry before the Election Committee, finding, as he did, from the journals, that Mr. Whalley, having been unseated on the 8th of June, and returned again to the House on the 27th, was petitioned against on the same day; whereas this petition against Earl Fitzwilliam was not presented until three days afterwards on the 30th of June.

said, the petitioners were not to blame for the delay which had taken place in the presentation of the petition. That delay arose, as he understood, from the difficulty of finding a Member of the House willing to undertake the labour and annoyance attending the presentation of the petition, and not from a desire to come in contact with any petition regarding the last election.

said, that he had done all in his power to cause the petition to be presented as soon as the Committee on the former election petition had decided; but he had found great difficulty in getting any Member to present it.

said, he wished to propose, by way of Amendment to insert "that in making laws and regulations, regard shall be had to the religion and manners, and opinions of the different races of people inhabiting the said territories. "If the natives of India had not as they ought to have, a share in the deliberations of the Indian Legislature, at least provision should be made that Indian legislation should not be offensive to their feelings. The 13th of George III. enacted, with this view, that there should be an appeal against the Indian Legislature to the Crown in Council; and the Act of 1833 gave to the Board of Directors power to disallow any act of the Indian Legislature within one year. It was expedient that adequate restrictions should be provided in this measure against the recurrence of such measures as those which, in several in-stances, had been within the last three years enacted by the Indian Legislature, offensive to the feelings and infractionary of the laws and religion of the natives of India. It had been stated in evidence be fore the Committee that of late years a great change was observable in the demeanour of the British officers, both civil and military who were intrusted with the administration of justice and the command of the army in India. It appeared that they were growing less attentive to the feelings, opinions, and prejudices of the people; and if the Govern- ment of India were also exhibiting less attention to those feelings, opinions, and prejudices than used to prevail in former days, the time might not be far distant when this country would feel the ill effects of departing from the wise policy which dictated conciliatory measures in the administration of the Government of India. He had lived upwards of thirty years in India, and he appreciated, better perhaps than others, the good qualities of the natives, and it was on this account that he desired to see respect paid to their national religion and manners. It might be urged that the Government of India was a government by the sword. If so, he begged the Committee to bear in mind that the class of persons most likely to be discontented by the acts which had been the subject of recent debate, were the very last who would yield to the sword of the army—a class, indeed, which comprised more than two-thirds of the army in India. But he should be sorry to imagine that we had no hold of India except that which we gained by the sword. He should little value the tenure of any such Government. His firm belief, however, was, that England owed the long continuance of her sway in India to the belief that it was her desire to govern the people justly and beneficently; and that belief, he contended, would be confirmed by the insertion of the words he proposed.

said, that the object of the hon. Gentleman (Sir H. Maddock) was merely to carry out in another form the proposal which he (Mr. Hume) made to the Committee the other night and which was then rejected, namely, to admit two natives as members of the Legislative Council. He considered that they were bound to respect the religious prejudices of the natives; and although the Government had refused to allow a Hindoo or a Mahometan to sit in the Council, it was only just that they should declare that the legislation of the Government of India under this new charter was not to be contrary to their religious prejudices and national habits. He thought that they had treated India with insult, by not admitting natives into the Council, particularly after the statement with regard to their fitness made by the hon. Member for Rochester (Sir H. Maddock). He feared the time would come, if they went on legislating against the prejudices and feelings of the natives of India, when the words of the hon. Member would be realised, and that you would not be able to keep them down by the sword. He should support the Amendment.

said, that the hon. Member for Montrose had given the best possible reason for rejecting the present Amendment; for he had said that its object was to carry out that which the Committee had rejected on a former night. If so, surely the same reasons which led to the rejection of the former Amendment, would equally apply to this. But, taking the Amendment upon its merits, what taking it propose to do? It proposed to add the following words:—"That in making laws and regulations regard shall be had to the religion, and manners, and opinions of the different races of people inhabiting the said territories." Now, what was the meaning of these words? He took it, as a lawyer, that they were merely directory—that they added nothing to, and took nothing from, the powers of the Legislative Council, but would leave them exactly where they were. The words were, in fact, mere surplusage, and would have no legal effect whatever; or, if they had any effect at all, it would be a mischievous one, inasmuch as they would tend to introduce doubts as to the competency of the Legislative Council to deal with a hundred matters connected with the natives, and would therefore be a stumbling block in the way of carrying on the business of the country. But what was the animus with which the words were introduced? The Committee were aware that, whereas we professed to govern India on the principles of civil and religious liberty—viewing all sects with an indifferent eye—and whereas the operation of the Hindoo law was to forfeit the lands and goods of any Hindoo who became a Christian, the British Legislature had wisely passed a law to do away with that forfeiture. Now, if the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman was carried, it would be at once presumed by certain parties in India that the present House of Commons disapproved the law in question—that they, a Christian Legislature, were so far forgetful of their duty as actually to approve of their fellow subjects incurring forfeiture of their lands and goods in consequence of embracing the religion of Her Majesty and the great body of her subjects. And, besides, he held that the Government was not bound to respect every law and custom of the natives merely because it was the law and custom, independently of its good sense, reason, and morality. We had already done away with several of their laws and customs. We had, for instance, abolished the practice of human sacrifices; we had abolished infanticide; we had abolished suttee almost all over India. There were many other laws and customs pernicious and immoral in their practice which it was still desirable to abolish, and he trusted that, one by one, as the Government felt their way, they would be able to abolish those also. So far, then, from wishing that Government should be restricted from putting down bad customs and bad laws, he trusted that they would gradually be able to improve them; and that, instead of Hindooising our own Government, we should be able to Europeanise theirs.

said, that the hon. Gentleman had objected to the terms of his Amendment; but if he had only turned to the next page of the Bill, he would have found the very same words in the 26th clause quoted from the Act of 1833. So that whatever fault the words had was attributable, not to him, but to the Parliament of 1833. It might be that the words were mere surplusage in a legal point of view; but at all events they would afford great satisfaction to the people of India, and he thought that in itself was sufficient to justify their insertion.

said, it was hardly fair in any hon. Gentleman to assume that there was no disposition in the Government of India to pay attention to the feelings and opinions of the people. Besides, the hon. Gentleman had himself admitted that the duty of attending to the feelings and opinions of the natives in laying the basis of their legislation was recognised in the 26th clause, and surely that was enough.

said, he objected to the preamble of the clause, as being calculated to convey an inaccurate view of the circumstances which had taken place with regard to the late Indian Law Commission. The preamble stated, that—

"Whereas the Indian Law Commissioners, from time to time appointed under the said Act, have, in a series of Reports, recommended extensive alterations in the judicial establishments, judicial procedure, and laws established and in force in India, and have set forth in detail the provisions which they have proposed to be established by law for giving effect to certain of their recommendations, and such reports have been transmitted from time to time to the said Court of Directors; but in the greater part of such reports and recommendations no final decision has been had."

He believed that the attention of the House was called to this point by the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Napier) on the second reading of the Bill; and that it had also been alluded to by Lord Monteagle in another place, but no satisfactory answer had yet been given by the Government. He thought it was desirable, however, that the matter should not be allowed to drop without either some member of the Court of Directors or the President of the Board of Control giving some explanation why the late Law Commission had been suffered to fall into abeyance in direct violation of the Act of 1833. It appeared that in 1842 Mr. Amos, one of the Commissioners, resigned. The Court of Directors, in December, 1842, sent a communication to the Board of Control, in which they stated—

"The Act of Parliament which created those offices requires that new appointments should be made as vacancies arise, and it is only by another Act that this obligation can be suspended."

The Board of Control avoided taking the opinion of the law officers of the Crown on this point, and confined themselves to the subject of Mr. Amos's vacancy, respecting which they said (February 1843)—

"If it be intended to submit to Parliament the abolition of the fourth member of Council, we see no objection to postponing the appointment till the sense of Parliament be taken."

In May, 1843, the Directors wrote to the Governor General—

"It is probable that an application will be made to Parliament at an early period of next Session for authority to put an end to this commission. In the meanwhile we desire you will not fill up any vacancy which may occur."

That was to say that, whereas the Act of Parliament required that the appointment should be filled up, they (the Directors) desired that the Governor General should break the law. The consequence had been that the law had continued to be violated from 1843 till now. He wished to hear what explanation could be given with regard to this case.

said, he did not profess to know what had taken place ten years ago, and he did not think it wise to waste the time of the Committee in discussing by-past events of that kind. What they had to do now was, to provide for the future government of India; and if the hon. Gentleman had any Amendment to offer upon the clause whereby that object could be better effected, he (Sir C. Wood) would be happy to consider it; but unless the hon. Member had such an Amendment to propose, he thought they had better proceed with the consideration of the Bill.

said, that the Indian Law Commissioners had made a series of reports, in which they recommended extensive alterations in the laws and judicial system of India, and their reports had been transmitted from time to time to the Court of Directors. But, in the words of the preamble to this clause, "in the greater part of such reports and recommendations no final decision has been had." The reports of the Commissioners were here brought home to the Directors; and it was here that explanation was desired. Why had not the Directors attended to those reports? The truth was, the Law Commission had, to a great extent, been a failure; and the Court of Directors were now called upon to excuse themselves from blame, if they could.

wished to know what reason there was for supposing that this clause would have any greater effect than the corresponding clause of the Act of 1833?

said, he considered the course taken by the right hon. Baronet (Sir C. Wood) most unsatisfactory. Because a clause in an Act of Parliament had proved a dead letter, and an explanation had been asked, they were told it was useless to inquire into it. In fact, they were called upon to abandon the tenor of experience. But what was the use of experience if it was not to prevent them from doing formally what had been uselessly ten years ago? What had been the result of the very words they were here asked to enact? Nothing. Surely the right hon. Baronet, who professed such entire ignorance of what had taken place only ten years ago, with regard to the country he was governing, could explain why the Commission had been attended with such little result. At all events, Parliament had a right to know the reason, and it ought not to be deterred by the juggle of a double government from an inquiry into a subject of such vast importance.

said, he admitted that there had been great delay and disappointment in connexion with the late Law Commission, but he thought he was taking the best possible means of remedying the evil by proposing the present clause. If hon. Members were not satisfied with the remedy he proposed, let them propose a better.

said, he had no desire to throw impediments in the way of improving the law; but he must say, when the right hon. Baronet used the words "delay" and "disappointment," that there had been a deliberate breach and violation of the Act. The right hon. Gentleman would let this charge go by default. His object, however, was answered in having made the charge, and in seeing the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Mangles), and the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir J. W. Hogg), sit by without answering it.

said, the hon. Members for Guildford and Honiton were exceedingly anxious that public business should be proceeded with, that the clauses of this Bill should be permitted to pass, and that objections should not be taken to a clause by an individual who said himself he did not mean to oppose it. The clause said generally that the Law Commission had made certain proposals, and that these proposals, which had had been submitted to the Judges of the three Supreme Courts of India, had been sent home. He admitted there had been considerable discussion upon them—that was always the case when there was diversity of opinion—but he denied that there had been any violation of the Act of Parliament by discontinuing to fill up an appointment which the Act of 1833 provided for. The hon. Gentleman was entirely wrong upon that subject. For many years there had always been a Legislative Member of Council, and he admitted it was in the contemplation of the Court of Directors in 1842 to abolish it. They had a distinct representation from the Governor General that the expense of the Law Commission was enormous, and that no adequate benefit was likely to arise from it; it was therefore suggested that the work of the Legislative Member of Council might be done by the Advocate General. In consequence of these suggestions, the matter was considered by the Court of Directors, who saw that as the appointment had been made by the direction of Parliament, it must be continued, unless the same authority discontinued it. It was discussed whether or not they should apply to Parliament; they determined not to do so; and the Legislative Member of Council existed now, and had constantly existed from 1833. The subordinate members, he admitted, had been discontinued and, in order to keep the Commission alive, another member had been added. The secretary had existed uninterruptedly There was, however, an impression that the expense far exceeded any benefit the had resulted; but the suggestion to discontinue it did not originate with the Court but it came from the Governor General in Council.

said, he did not think the hon. Member for Honiton had got well out of the matter. They were told in very glowing terms in 1833 by the then Secretary to the Board of Control that nothing was so easy as to give a good code of laws to India, and that the advancement of the natives to offices should be encouraged. On both those points there had been a great disappointment. Between 100,000l. end 200,000l. had been expended on the Law Commission—which was easily done when the members had 10,000l. a year—and without any result. It appeared by the evidence before the Lords Committee last year that the code prepared by the right hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Macaulay) was positively untranslateable into any language in India. If that was the case, it was right that it should not be adopted; but it would have been better if the Law Commissioners had not resided five years in India at a great expense. If, however, the vacancies in the Law Commission were not filled up, the matter should have been brought before Parliament. He must say that the President of the Board of Control assumed a style which was not very desirable, and exhibited a great deal of impatience. The hon. Member for Newcastle-on-Tyne (Mr. Blackett) had made some very reasonable remarks, and the right hon. Gentleman lectured him about going back ten years, and said that he might either accept the clause or reject it; and he talked of the pressure of public business, and the late period of the Session. That was not their fault, and the right hon. Gentleman tried to take advantage of his own wrong; yet the interests of 100,000,000 of people, who were suffering from their laws being in a perfect chaos, were nothing, to the convenience of a Minister, Would this clause have any greater effect than that in the Bill of 1833? The right hon. Gentleman had not shown that. He (Mr. Bright) wished to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman, in cones- quenee of a letter he had received from Bombay, stating that it was reported that it was the intention of the Government to send out Commissioners to each of the Presidencies to inquire into and report on the state of the country; with power to redress grievances and promote improvements, perhaps in the means of communication, the tenure of land, and the administration of justice. He wished to know if the Government had any such intention? He hoped they had, for he believed great good would ensue from such Commissions, whose information would form the basis of future legislation for the government of India.

in explanation, said, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh had been appointed Legislative Member of the Council at a salary of 10,000l., but it was no part of his duty to be a member of the Law Commission. Being, however, Legislative Member of Council, he voluntered to act as the President of the Law Commission, and he acted gratuitously in that respect during the whole time he was in India. The other member of the Commission had not 10,000l. a year, but 5,000l. a year. Let the House remember, that although the subject had been in agitation for thirty years, there was no criminal code for England; and he thought it was not surprising, when they considered the extent of India, the diversity of nations and creeds, and the differences of language, that a criminal code had not yet been formed applicable to the whole of India. We had not yet been able to frame one for our own country, where the difficulty was comparatively little, and where the appliances and means were great; it was no marvel that one had not been framed for India. He could not conceive anything requiring more care, more time, and more attention, and he did not think that the delay which had occurred, considering the magnitude and importance of the object in view, was to be blamed or regretted when compared with what would be the consequence of framing for India a code of laws that would not be applicable to its condition.

said, the hon. Member for Honiton told them the fifth member of the Legislative Council had been always appointed, but that the subordinate members of the Law Commission had been discontinued. That was precisely the charge he brought.

said, the hon. Gen- tleman had not stated the cause which led to the failure of the Law Commission. The laws were framed by the Law Commission, and then handed over to the Legislative Council, which was overburdened with business, and was utterly unable to give sufficient attention to it. That was the great cause of the failure of the Law Commission for practical purposes. That would be remedied by this Bill, because this plan was founded on an entirely different system. The whole thing would be in the hands of the same body to frame the laws and to enact them.

said, that the cause of the breaking down of the Commission was, according to the evidence of Mr. Cameron, owing to the irresistible opposition of the Court of Directors.

said, he feared that the progross of the Bill would not be facilitated by bringing charges against the Directors for what they had done ten years ago.

said, he attributed the failure of the Commission to their having undertaken to do too much. He believed that one code of laws for the whole of India was impossible. He wished to know how the Board in England was to work?

replied, by stating, that the reports of the Commissioners would be transmitted to the Indian Government for its consideration, with power to amend and adopt their suggestions.

said, he should support the clause, from the conviction that never was there a time when greater responsibility rested upon the Crown and the Legislature, in reference to the Government of India, than the present.

said, he must remind hon. Members that all the evidence that had been taken by the Committee upstairs proved that when attempts had been made to assimilate the laws of England and of India, those attempts had invariably failed.

said, he was of opinion, that to subject the Court of Directors to the supervision of the Board of Control in a matter of this nature, would degrade them in public estimation.

said, he took the same view of the clause, and at the same time he must declare his inability to discover a reason for what appeared to be a gratuitous insult to the Court of Directors. If the Directors were to be intrusted with power at all, surely they should be allowed to appoint their legal officer.

hoped the Government would not abandon the clause. Any one who might refer to the list of Advocates General during the present century would find abundant reason for enacting the clause.

said, the object of the clause was to guard agaist the possibility of an improper appointment; at the same time he attached no great importance to it.

citing the names of the principal men who had held the office of Advocate General in the present century, including Sir Robert Smith, Sir W. Burroughes, Mr. Cutlar Ferguson, Mr. Sergeant Spankie, Mr. Pearson, Sir J. Colville, Sir Lawrence Peel, and Mr. Jackson, challenged the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. J. G. Phillimore) to name a single one of those men who was not eminently qualified, by ability and learning, for the office of Advocate General. He (Sir J. W. Hogg) had certainly felt it his duty to oppose one appointment, and it was of Mr. Lyall's he spoke. But he opposed it, not with reference to the character or acquirements of Mr. Lyall, for he was well known at the University as a distinguished scholar and an accomplished man; but with reference to his standing at the Bar, which, being under six years, he thought was too junior to be appointed to such an office. He stated the whole truth, and did not withhold from the House the only case which perhaps might be subject to remark. He felt assured that it was not the intention of Government to throw any stigma on the Court of Directors; but the clause did appear to justify the statement made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leominster, that there was "abundant reason" for it; and if it was only to show that this statement was without foundation, and that the series of appointments had been such as were beneficial to the country, he hoped his right hon. Friend would not persevere with the clause.

said, he had endeavoured to introduce as little personal matter into the debate as possible; but, as reference had been made by the hon. Baronet to the case of Mr. Lyall, he must say that the early age at which that gentleman was made Advocate General rendered his appointment a very improper one. [Sir J. W. HOGG: That is only one case.] The hon. Baronet should not tempt him to enter into more cases by name, though he did think there were other appointments which would not have been made but for interest. His impression was that Mr. Lyall had been appointed singly and solely because he was the son of an East India Director, and he thought this appointment alone justified the assertion he had made.

wished the hon. and learned Gentleman would give chapter and verse for the charge he had brought against the Directors. [Cries of "No, no!"]

said, he must express a hope that the right hon. Gentleman would not yield to the proposition of the hon. Baronet the Member for Honiton (Sir. J. W. Hogg), for the hon. Baronet himself, in the case he had mentioned, had shown the necessity why a veto might well be vested in the hands of a Minister of the Crown.

said, he had to renew a charge which had been made some years ago by the hon. and learned Member for Carlow (Mr. J. Ball), that the Directors of the East India Company, particularly in the law appointments, made their selection almost entirely from the English Bar, and that no Irishmen were sent to India. He was anxious that this charge should not be made again, and he rejoiced that power was given by this Bill to the President of the Board of Control to see that these appointments for the future were fairly distributed.

said, he thought if the appointment were vested in the hands of the Board of Control it would be found that the Government were very much open to pressure from without, and that in order to satisfy some portion or other of its supporters it might make legal appointments which would not be preferable to those which were now made by the East India Company. At first he had no great objection to the chase as its stood, because he believed the appointment would be made in concert between the two bodies—the East India Direction and the Government; but if the Committee were to decide upon the principle on which it was now put, that it was to be in the hands of the Govern- ment, then he must say that he had great distrust of Government appointments; and he thought it was not unlikely the appointment would be given to some supporter of the Ministry of the day. With these opinions he should wish the clause withdrawn, that the appointment might remain altogether with the Court of Directors.

said, he thought there ought to be a check to the power of the Court of Directors in these appointments; he was aware of a case in which Sir James Grant, who had agreed with a predecessor of his in allowing an appeal by a native to a supreme Court, was superseded, and the Advocate General was appointed in his stead.

said, with regard to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. F. Scully), he could state that two, if not three, of the gentlemen mentioned by the hon. Baronet (Sir J. W. Hogg) as having received the appointment were Irishmen. There was not the least wish, on the part of the Government, to keep this appointment in their hands; on the contrary, they left it to the Court of the Directors, subject only to the approbation and control of the Government. The sole object they had in view in this as in all other cases where the approbation of the Crown was made a condition of appointments, was to secure that the Court of Directors should make a proper selection.

said, that not one of the Irishmen who had received the appointment of Advocate General belonged to the Irish Bar; they were all selected from the English Bar. Upon the general question, he had only to say that it was not wished to keep the appointment, but only the veto, in the hands of the Board of Control, and, on constitutional grounds, he should certainly support such a course.

in reply to the hon. Member for Cork County (Mr. Roche), mentioned the names of several members of the Irish Bar who had held judicial appointments in India, and among others, Sir John Franks, Sir Francis Macnaghten, and Mr. Stretrel. In the year 1844 or 1845, he had, himself, as Chairman, offered, through Sir Frederic Thesiger, the appointment of Advocate General at Bengal to five English Barristers, by all of whom it was declined. The offer was made through Sir Frederic Thesiger, because neither himself or his colleagues were sufficiently acquainted with the merits of members of the Bar, and they made the offer depend solely upon their professional character. It was not men of great practice who would take it, and they selected men of character and talent. He objected to the clause for this reason, that the East India Company down to the present time had had this appointment in their own hands, and to say now that it was in future to be made subject to the approbation of the Crown, was to say, by implication, that they had not honestly discharged their duty in the appointments they had made.

said, he would not be a party to any course that would imply a censure upon the East India Company for their appointments, nine out of ten of which were admitted by the Minister of the Crown to be unexceptionable.

said, he had no wish to support any course which would meet the views just advocated by the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Roche), who distinctly stated that he valued the clause because it would cause a scramble amongst the Irish Bar for appointments. If the Scotch and English put forward similar claims, as they had a right to do, the scramble for patronage would be on a most extensive scale. He never heard a clause so weakly supported as the present was. If the appointments were vested in the Board of Control, the right hon. Gentleman would be subject to continual pressure on account of them. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman, in whatever view he might regard those appointments, as they concerned himself, would endeavour to relieve his successors from the odium that must attach to them in respect to those appointments.

said, the statement of the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir J. W. Hogg), did great credit to the Court of Directors, in the way of appointments. But the East India Company were subject to influences as well as other bodies, and he thought that it would be well to counteract them as far as it was possible. The President of the Board of Control would not have the direct appointment, but merely a controlling power to check any improper selection by the Court of Directors.

said, he wished to inquire of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Control relative to this clause, which provides that the Commander in Chief of Her Majesty's forces shall also be Commander in Chief of the Company's forces. He had some fears that the effect of this clause would be to exclude the Company's officers from the chief command.

said, there would be no such exclusion; it would be perfectly competent for Her Majesty to appoint a Company's officer Commander in Chief of Her forces, and consequently Commander in Chief of the Indian army.

said, he was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman's explanation, because the exclusion from the supreme command had long been felt by the officers of the Indian army to be a stigma upon them. They had great cause to complain of the situation in which they had been placed in this respect. In the Affghan war some of the officers of the Indian army had conducted themselves in a manner which would have been creditable to any service. They wanted a little more reform in the appointments in India, and if they had made more use of the Company's officers than they had done, they would not witness such proceedings as were now taking place in India. He would not say anything of Bombay, for he believed there was a great deal of talent there; but, looking to Bengal and Madras, he thought the time was come when some of the officers should be relieved from their commands.

said, he would suggest that the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman should be embodied in words and added to the clause, for he himself had certainly understood that the effect of the clause would be to exclude the Company's officers.

wished to know whether the Government were prepared with the alterations so much desired with regard to furloughs. The present system was a great grievance in the Indian army, and many officers suffered considerably through not being allowed to come to England on sick leave, though they might go to Australia and the Cape.

said, the sole object of this clause was to remove the restrictions which at present prevented officers on sick leave coming home to England.

said, the present rules with regard to furloughs did not arise from any act of the Court of Directors, but were compulsory by the law as it at present existed. The object of this clause was to remove the restrictions, and give the home authorities power to make such regulations on the subject as they should think fit.

said, there had been abundance of evidence before the Committee of the grievance which the present system with regard to furloughs inflicted on the Indian army, and which evidently arose originally from the time required to come to England before the days of steam navigation. What seemed to be the general desire of the witnesses examined before the Committee was, that the Company's officers should be placed in the same position as officers in the Queen's service.

wished to know why some of the officers were paid in sicca rupees, while all the rest were paid in Company's rupees?

said, that all salaries, without exception, were paid in Company's rupees.

said, he begged to ask what the right hon. Gentleman intended to do with regard to the salaries of the Directors? He thought the original salary of 500l. a year, proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, was utterly insignificant for persons in such a position. Nothing was said about the subject in the Bill, and he wished to know whether it was the right hon. Gentleman's intention to propose any larger sum?

said, that having first proposed 500l, a year, he had not thought it fitting to suggest an increase, except the general expression of opinion in the House had been in favour of it. If such were the sense of the house, he should have no objection to make the salary 1,000l. per annum, which he thought, in many respects, would be more fitting for the office.

said, he thought that if an increase in the salary were not made, it would be impossible to obtain proper men to fill the office now that they had taken from it all other inducements.

wished to know if any re- gulations were to be made with regard to the absence of the Governor-General and the Commanders in Chief from the seat of their Governments.

said, he thought it would be exceedingly undesirable to make any legislative provision on the subject. It had better be left to be settled by regulations from the home authorities.

said, he had no objection to the reduction of salaries; but he thought it was rather extraordinary, when they reduced the Commander in Chief's salary that they did not also reduce the Governor General's salary. By reducing one without the other, they increased the disproportion between the salary of the Governor General and the officer next highest to him in rank.

would suggest that the salary of the Commander in Chief should be so fixed that it would cover all the contingencies of his pleasure trips, which were very expensive to the Country.

said, that the absence of the Governor General and the Commander in Chief must always depend upon circumstances; they often did more service to the country while absent from the seat of Government than they could have done had they remained there. He believed that the Governor General rather lost than gained by his absence.

thought that the right hon. Gentleman was mistaken there, for he knew that when the Governor of Bombay moved up the country he caused considerable expense.

So he might, but he would gain nothing by it personally.

said, that before the clause was disposed of, he wished to know when the House would have an opportunity of discussing the subject of the Directors' salaries?

was understood to say that the only time to raise that discussion would be when a clause was brought up with reference to the subject.

said, in connexion with this subject, he begged to say, that one reason why he proposed, the other evening, to abolish the oaths was, that he did not see how the Directors, considering the patronage they enjoyed, could well be called on to make the declaration which was included in the oath directed to be taken by the 12th clause. By that clause every Director had to swear that he would not—

"directly or indirectly accept or take any perquisite, emolument, fee, present, or reward, upon any account whatsoever, or any promise of the same for or in respect of the appointment or nomination of any person or persons to any place or office in the gift or appointment"

of the Company. Now, there could be no doubt that the patronage possessed by the Directors was something advantageous to them. He lately heard of a case from a Member of that House with respect to a relation of his, which would show how the matter stood. This Gentleman applied for an appointment in India, and he got a promise from Mr. So-and-so. When the promise was asked for, "My friend is not rich, and you are a man of business," was the significant rejoinder, which was understood to mean anything that it was not desirable to ask openly and distinctly. The gentleman said, "I am a man of business; what of that?" The answer was, "My friend is not a rich man, and you are a man of business. I need not say any more about it." "Well, I suppose you mean an offer of money, but even if I were disposed to do that, is there not a law by which I am obliged, when I go to the India House, to swear or declare that I have not given, directly or indirectly, and shall not give, any one any fee or reward." "Oh," he said, "these are mere matters of form, and you are a man of business." This was the constant argument. At last the gentleman said, "I am a man of business, but not a man of that sort of business, for it is impossible for me to make the declaration required at the India House. Nothing would induce me to do so." Well, he did not get the appointment, but somebody else did who was a better man of business. [Cries of "Name, name!"] He would not name, but he had given the conversation as it occurred, and there was a Member of that House who could give it even more minutely. The Directors, therefore, found a personal advantage in the distribution of their patronage. He recollected the case of a celebrated artist who, knowing that the Directors were forbidden to receive any gift directly, asked a Director, if he would not like to have a portrait taken of himself, his wife and children. He thought that portraits of this kind made by a celebrated artist, to be hung up in the Director's room would be compensation sufficient for the favour asked at his hands. There was no doubt that when they spoke of a Director's patronage they meant that it was something advantageous to him, though when they said it was worth 10,000l. a year, they did not mean that he received that amount in money, but that, by interchanges among friends, and in a variety of ways, he had a large amount of patronage that was personally advantageous to him, and that was the reason why the salaries were so low heretofore; for he did not believe that their patriotism was so great that they would give the whole amount of their time for the twelve months—attending every week and day at the India House—with all the vast anxiety of mind under which they laboured for the good of India; he did not believe that they would undergo all this for 300l. a year. If they had no other object in that House than 300l. a year—and they did not even get that—he did not believe many of them would be there, and he thought many of them were much deluded in being there. There they sat by night, and in the day they attended Committees, for which the public generally believed they were paid, but it was not so. He voted against the oath which this Bill required the Directors to take, namely, that they would not, directly or indirectly, accept of any fee or reward on the ground that none of them could take the oath in its literal sense and meaning. But coming to the question of salaries, if the Directors were to continue to have patronage, or that portion of their emoluments which patronage gave, he did not think the salary should be fixed at a higher sum than was proposed. If it was proposed to raise the salaries of the nominated Directors only to 1,000l., he did not see how it was possible to keep up the distinction of salaries. There were to be eighteen Directors, and if they received 1,000l.a year each, that would be 18,000l.; and as the Chairman and Deputy Chairman would probably have double salaries, it would make altogether a sum of 20,000l. This Bill greatly increased the expenses of the Indian Government. He did not mean to say that this was not necessary; but when the Legislature of this country was taxing India to a degree more than any civilised or uncivilised Government ever taxed a people before—for he maintained that in proportion to their means no people were so enormously taxed as the natives of India—it was their duty to see that the expenses of the Home Government were not increased, unless they saw that the people of India would gain real and solid advantages in return. He proposed on a future occasion to go into the question of the expenses of the Home Government for India, which were frightfully scandalous. The India Direction and Board of Control cost twice and quadruple as much as the best Home Government could be established for. If the number of Directors were reduced to seven, so that they had plenty to do, and had full responsibility, he would not object to giving them 1,500l. or even 2,000l. a year. But when he found East India Directors able to attend that House night and day—that they had business concerns in the city, and that some of them had business of half a dozen other kinds on their hands, besides the enjoyment of their salaries and patronage, he thought the House would be acting regardlessly of the people of India if they allowed the taxes, which were raised extortionately from them, to be lavished by those who did not contribute any part of them.

said, the hon. Member who had just sat down was a man of business, and as a man of business he ought not to make statements to that House which he could not substantiate—he ought not, as a man of business, to snake imputations and attacks upon individuals unless he was fully prepared to prove and establish them. He (Mr. T. Baring) was a man of business also, and he must be permitted to state that in his experience he had not always found that those most suspicious of others were the most trustworthy themselves. He was sure that the hon. Gentleman did not do himself or his own character and feelings justice, because, as every one was disposed to judge of others by himself, the hon. Gentleman, he must repeat, did not do his own high character justice by spreading imputations and attacks of this kind. This question ought not to have been treated as a mere personal question. He was sure that justice was not done when it was made the vehicle of attacks upon a number of persons who were entrusted with the agency of the Government of India. This showed the feeling which some hon. Members and some persons out of doors entertained, namely, to make every constituted body, whether a Company or a Cabinet, which had possessed power for any length of time, the pointed aim of attacks. He (Mr. T. Baring) thought that it would be far more consistent with the high character of the hon. Gentleman, and the undoubted importance of the question, if he refrained as much as he could from showing that acrimonious opposition to those individuals who had been entrusted with the Government of India, and if he confined himself to the mode in which that Government had been administered. With regard to the question of salaries, he (Mr. T. Baring) presumed the right hon. Gentleman (the President of the Board of Control) would take it into his own hands. The Government was all-powerful on this question, and they should make such alterations in the Bill as they deemed expedient; and, if they took that course, they would be supported by the House in doing whatever was right and proper.

said, it was very true that the hon. Member for Manchester had, throughout the whole of this discussion, indulged in personal observations, for which, however, he did not wish now to blame him. But when an hon. Member made a statement casting imputations on any man, and made it of his own knowledge, that statement must, primâ facie, be taken to be true and to be probable. He hoped the day would never come when any Member might rise in his place and make a charge against any gentleman, or any body of men, entrusted with power, and yet shrink from substantiating, that charge. The hon. Member had spoken not generally, but in detail. He had spoken of some personal friend of his own—a friend who seemed to deal in the basest of all traffics. He had spoken of a proposal base to the man who made it, base to the man to whom it was made. He had told them that his friend had been appealed to as "a man of business;" and there could be no doubt as to the meaning of that expression, for the hon. Gentleman added that he could not make the declaration—required by the rules of the India House—that he had given nothing for the appointment. He went further, and said, the appointment did not take place, but went to somebody who was "a better man of business." Now, he (Sir J. W. Hogg) called upon the hon. Gentleman, as he hoped in future that his statements in the House would command belief and credit, to state the name of the party, the appointment, and the name of the Director, whom, if these imputations against him were true, he ought to hold up to public scorn and disgrace. If the hon. Member shrank from this, all that he had said of the Directors would fall back upon himself. He would state to the House some of the foundations on which these kind of stories rested. When he was Chairman, some few years since, there were rumours respecting the distribution of patronage, so generally circulated that he thought there must be some foundation for them. A Secret Committee sat for five or six months, and over it he presided. Before that Committee everybody was called who could, by his evidence, cast the slightest imputation on any Director. The result was, that they found gangs of swindlers had personated Directors, and promised patronage. The different gangs were indicted, and, he thought, convicted, without exception. In one case there was a son, seemingly appointed by the agency of the father, who paid 1,200l. for the appointment. Owing to some unexpected circumstance he went on one occasion straight to the real Director, and in a roundabout way introduced his subject. The Director denied any knowledge of the transaction, and the gentleman pulled out a note purporting to be from the Director. The note was of course a forgery. In the house of one of these gangs they found a tariff of appointments under Government, as well as under the Company—a tariff which went even to titles, and fixed the price of a peerage. On that occasion everybody able to cast any imputation against the Directors did so, and there was certainly one of their own body who appeared to be implicated. He was indicted and convicted. Having stated these particulars, he again appealed to the hon. Member. He asked the House to co-operate with him in his appeal to that hon. Member to state the details, to state the persons, to state the names, and to expose all engaged in that infamous transaction to the public scorn, which they deserved. The hon. Gentleman said that he believed it was admitted that, although there was no money given, yet that the Court of Directors, by the exchange of appointments, or by some other arrangement, received something for their patronage. He (Sir J. W. Hogg) told the hon. Gentleman that that statement was totally void of truth and foundation, and that, according to his standard of morality, any Director who gave an appointment with any expectation, direct or indirect, proximate or remote, of any reward, emolument, favour, or interchange, or anything in return—either money, appointment, or anything else—after the declaration he had made, basely perjured himself, and basely betrayed the patronage which was commit- ted to him for the public advantage. Let the hon. Gentlemen give up the names of those to whom he alluded, and he (Sir J. W. Hogg) pledged himself that the Court of Directors would co-operate with him in exposing those who had been engaged in these infamous transactions.

said, it was quite cheerful to see such virtuous indignation displayed in this matter, and a lecture had been read to him, not for the first time, by the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. T. Baring), but in his speech he had seemed to admit the whole case, for he said that the consideration of the patronage was one reason why the salary was so low as 300l. a year. ["Hear, hear!"] That was just the pith of what he (Mr. Bright) had stated to the House. He supposed no man living, who ever had patronage to bestow, had not found it an irksome and unpleasant business. Let them take the right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury bench. The noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) and the late Sir Robert Peel, before the Official Salaries' Committee, had spoken in language that almost claimed their compassion of the difficulty they had in selecting persons for patronage, and they said that giving one appointment disappointed about twenty persons. It was absurd to suppose that 300l. a year was a salary sufficient to induce men to discharge the duty incumbent on a Director of the East India Company. But 300l. a year was considered enough, in consequence of the patronage that attached to the position of a Director. This was the notorious belief, not only of the country, but also of the House. The hon. Baronet (Sir J. W. Hogg) had applied to him to tell the House in detail the case to which he had referred. He had told it to the House in considerable detail. He had told it as a narrative communicated to him by a Member of that House, whose name it was not necessary to give, referring to a near relative of that Member. The circumstances he had stated were those which had been stated to him, and he believed them to be true. The hon. Member for Honiton (Sir J. W. Hogg) said that his (Mr. Bright's) friend was the base individual who made the offer. No; his friend was the man who was not sufficiently a man of business to enter into the transaction. He did not say that the person who made the offer was a friend of the hon. Gentleman's. At any rate, he (Mr. Bright) did not know him, but he knew the gentleman who had refused to have anything to do with the transaction. He therefore hoped none of the baseness of the transaction would apply to him. He hoped, also, that it did not apply to any one belonging to the Court of Directors. But that such things were done, or were believed to be done, was indisputable. It was the natural result of an arrangement by which men, with great and important duties, were paid only 300l. a year, the rest being made up by patronage. The President of the Board of Control had seemed to say that it was partly by reason of the diminution in the value of the patronage that the salary of the Directors was to be raised to 500l. He did not believe that if he or any Member of that House were placed in that position with 10,000l. of patronage a year to distribute, that they could avoid giving way to the enormous temptation of distributing it in a way that would produce some advantage—either to themselves or their families, in some way or other. No office was so open to temptation of this kind as that of the East India Director. He did not approve of the system. Let the patronage be taken from them, and let them have a salary suitable to the dignity of their position and the responsibility of their office. As to making attacks upon the Directors, he had taken the same course for the last seven years. The district of the country with which he was connected was concerned enormously in the manner in which India was governed, and no taunts of the hon. Member for Honiton, or of the hon. Member for Huntingdon, should deter him from denouncing what he believed to be a, corrupt system; but he made no charge against the hon. Member for Honiton, or his colleagues. It was quite possible that the Director who was to have furnished the appointment was as innocent as the hon. Gentleman; but he said that the public believed that such affairs as this did actually take place, and that was a conclusive argument against the system which was about to be continued.

begged to ask the hon. Member for Manchester whether he would give up the names of the parties to whom he had referred; or whether, by concealing them, he would make himself a party to the charge?

hoped the hon. Member did not mean to say that he was a party to the fraud. He had stated exactly what was told to him by a Member of that House; he knew to whom the appointment was offered, but not by whom, nor did he know the Director referred to. What he had stated was on the authority of a Member of that House. ["Name, name!"] No; he would not state the name. He thought his own reputation should be a warrant of the truth of the statement he had made—he would not abandon the ground he had taken.

said, he would appeal to the House whether such charges should be brought forward without any attempt being made to substantiate them? How could any Gentleman or man of honour hear such charges made with respect to a body of which he was a member, and not feel indignant? He appealed to the hon. Member for Manchester to name the parties to whom he had alluded.

said, he wished to move, as an Amendment, to leave out the words—

"The provisions hereinafter mentioned respecting the admission of students into the College of the said Company at Haileybury, that is to say, Sections 103, 104, 105, 106, and 107 of the said Act of the third and fourth years of King William the Fourth, shall be repealed."

He opposed the introduction of words into the clause, the effect of which would be to alter that clause in the Act of 1833, which conferred upon the Directors the patronage they at present exercised. He thought the changes that were proposed were much more considerable than were necessary. The result of the present distribution of patronage of the Company had been highly beneficial. They had the evidence given before the Committee by Lord Hardinge, Sir George Pollock, and Sir Charles Napier, as to the efficiency of the military service in India. Why, then, was so large a change proposed to be introduced? His right hon. Friend (Sir C. Wood), on the second reading of this Bill, had placed great stress on those two noble seats of learning, Haileybury and Addiscombe, from which had issued so many distinguished personages. The effect of the measure was to open competition, to make a man's fortune in life depend on his success or want of success in a preliminary examination at those places. This would have an important effect both on the civil and military service of India. What, for instance, would be the effect on the military service? The words in the Act were, "natural-born subjects of Her Majesty:" and a question was raised in the other House whether that would include the natives of India. It was answered in the affirmative, and, therefore, if the Bill passed, it must be understood that all the natives of India were authorised to submit themselves to general competition. The consequence might therefore be, that, in the course of time, European soldiers would be commanded by native officers. He could not understand, however, if the competition was to take place under certain regulations, how it could be open competition. He demurred altogether to the principle that a man's future life was to be judged from his excellence in his early youth. He denied they could carry that out to such an extent as to make it a general rule. As an illustration of his argument, he would mention that those who were now the most distinguished officers in the East India Company's service had not when at College succeeded in passing for Engineers, but had been obliged to enter the Artillery. Among these were Sir George Pollock, Sir Henry Pottinger, Mr. Kaye, Mr. M'Gregor, Sir Henry Lawrence, and Mr. Abbott. He conceived that the Government would have immense difficulties to encounter in bringing their system of competition into practice. Whether that competition was to be general or special, it was equally open to objection. They had now to decide between two systems of competition—the one which now existed in the East India Company, or the new system which was proposed by the Government. Objectionable as he believed many parts of the Bill were, he considered this was the most objectionable portion, and that from it very unhappy consequences might arise. When the natives of India heard it proclaimed that they had a right to enter the service of the Company, they would, by their own intelligence and ability, render themselves qualified for that service, if they had only the means of doing so. Then one of two consequences would follow. They would either find their way into the service, or else the Company would have arrayed against them a spirit of discontent on the part of the whole people of India, the result of which it would be difficult to foresee. He did not see on what principle of justice, if they once admitted the principle of open competition, they could say to the natives of India they had not a perfect right to enter the service. These were practical difficulties which it became the Government to consider; and if they did not promise to do so, he should feel it his duty to divide the Committee with regard to the colleges at Haileybury and Addiscombe.

said, he thought it desirable to keep the questions relating to the two establishments distinct, and he should now only address himself to the case of Haileybury College. In doing so, he did not think it necessary to add much to what had already fallen from the right hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Macaulay), whose statement was confirmed by all experience, that those persons who distinguished themselves early in life generally occupied prominent stations in after life. By the proposed system the persons admitted to Haileybury College would be in every respect as good as those admitted now by the nomination of the Directors, and there would be this additional advantage, that they would have proved their superiority in point of intellect. Admitting the efficiency of the Indian service, he still saw no reason why it ahould not be improved, and he could not see any reason why they should not take every possible means of insuring the best men for the responsible situations which had to be filled.

said, he wished to know of what use Haileybury College would be if this new system were adopted? Was it to be supposed that the pupils, after acquiring all the learning which procured their admission, could learn anything more at Haileybury? He would submit to the Government that, having every testimony that they possessed the having civil servants of any public establishment ever known, why should they run the risk of destroying such an excellent body of men? He would suggest that, by way of a trial, one-third or one-half should be admitted by competition, and the remainder from Haileybury, by which means both plans would be tested, and the merits of each fairly ascertained. As to Addiscombe, he thought that touching that was the rashest act which could be done. No seminary had turned out so many excellent and superior men as Addiscombe. He would therefore move as an Amendment to be added to this clause:—

said, he thought there was one point upon which information was most necessary, namely, whether it was intended that natives of India should be included in the competition, and whether it was to be held out to them that all the services were open to them, if they had sufficient talent to obtain them?

said, he would remind the hon. Member that that question would come before the Committee upon the discussion of the next clause. The present clause only said that from the passing of the Act all appointments to Haileybury and Addiscombe should cease, and he held himself free to object to the details by which it was now proposed to carry out the plan.

said, he was quite ready to take a division upon the question of competition with regard to Haileybury, and then to consent that progress should be reported.

admitted that it might be desirable to try the system of competition, but he was not prepared to adopt the system of competition absolutely. He considered that nothing could be better than the plan pursued at Addiscombe, where the pupils, after three years' study, underwent an examination, and those who most distinguished themselves were appointed to the Artillery and Engineers. The consequence was, that those departments of the military service of the East India Company were at least equal, if not superior, to any other similar services in the world.

said, he wished the subject of civil and military appointments to to be considered separately; and he was anxious now to take a division upon the question whether the appointments to Haileybury should be open to competition or not. He fully admitted the importance of this subject, and if it was the wish of the Committee he would not object to reporting progress.

said, he would withdraw his Amendment on the understanding that they should begin with the clause to-morrow.

said, he wished to know if the right hon. Gentleman (Sir C. Wood) would inform the Committee what restrict- tions he proposed upon admissions to Addiscombe? If it was proposed to grant admissions to Addiscombe without some test, some of the most effeminate and least qualified natives of India would, by cramming, just obtain sufficient knowledge to pass, and then get situations in the Artillery, to the detriment of the service.

said, that he would state the opinions of the Government on that subject to-morrow.

said, he would now move, that with respect to post-horse duties, the following Resolution be agreed to:—

"That from and after the 10th day of October 1853, the Duties of Excise payable under any Act or Acts now in force on Horses let for hire, and on licenses to let-the same, shall respectively cease and determine; and in lieu thereof there shall be paid for and in respect of every license to be taken out yearly by every person who shall let any horse for hire, with or without any carriage to be used therewith, the following Duties of Excise (that is to say)—

	Duty.
	£	s.	d.
"Where the person taking out such license shall keep at one and the same time, to be let for hire.
1 horse or 1 carriage only And where such person shall keep, as aforesaid, any greater number of horses or carriages,	7	10	0
Not exceeding 2 horses or 2 carriages	12	10	0
Not exceeding 4 horses or 3 carriages	20	0	0
Not exceeding 8 horses or 6 carriages	30	0	0
Not exceeding 12 horses or 9 carriages	40	0	0
Not exceeding 16 horses or 12 carriages	50	0	0
Not exceeding 20 horses or 15 carriages	60	0	0
Exceeding 15 carriages	70	0	0
Exceeding 20 horses, then for every additional number of 10 horses, and for any additional number less than 10 over and above 20, or any other multiple of 10 horses, the further additional Duty of	10	0	0"

The object of the Resolution was to consolidate all the various duties where they were now liable to be paid into a single duty. The new duties had been calculated in such a way, by those most experienced in the matter, as to make a reduc- tion to those persons who would have to pay them, of at least 60,000l. a year. The new scale of duties had been much considered by the principal persons amongst the owners of carriages and horses, and it gave them great satisfaction.

said, that he believed in no case would a person now keeping horses which paid a duty but would pay a less sum than at present.

then moved the following Resolution:—

"That from and after a day to be named, the Duties now payable in respect of Hackney Carriages, and Licenses to keep and let to hire such Carriages, within the distance of five miles from the General Post Office in the City of London, shall cease and determine; and in lieu thereof there shall be payable for and in respect of every Hackney Carriage which shall be kept, used, or let to hire within the limits of the Act of the present Session of Parliament, Chapter 33, for the better regulation of Metropolitan Stage and Hackney Carriages, the several Duties following (that is to say)—

	£	s.	d.
For and upon every License to be taken out yearly to keep, use, and let to hire any such Hackney Carriage	1	0	0
And for and in respect of every such Hackney Carriage as aforesaid, weekly and every week:—
	Weekly Duty.
Where the License for such Carriage shall authorise the using and letting to hire of the same on every day of the week, the sum of	0	7	0
And where such License shall authorise the using and letting to hire of such Carriage, on every day of the week except Sunday, the suns of.	0	6	0"

He had only one explanation to state in reference to this Resolution, and that was, to call attention to the duty of 1l. for keeping a carriage. The present plan was to levy the duty when the licence was taken out, upon which 5l. was paid. In the Bill this would be provided for; those who have paid their 5l. shall not pay the new duty until a certain time—say three years from the 5th January next. As to the weekly duty, the tax had been so contrived that parties would have to pay 7s. for seven days, and 6s. for six days, so that those who objected to hire their carriages on Sunday would not have to pay the duty.