said, he wished to ask the President of the Poor Law Board, Whether the authorities of workhouses are not bound by law to admit at all times all persons who apply to them for admission, and, therefore, if, on the application of any person for admission into any workhouse, the portion of that establishment usually allotted to the casual poor should happen to be filled, the person in charge of such establishment is not compelled to find for the applicant accommodation in some other part of the premises, or a free lodging elsewhere, and whether it is lawful for the authorities of workhouses to place persons admitted in a clean condition in the same room with those who are not? He asked the question in consequence of poor persons having been frequently refused admission, and also on account of the bad accommodation provided.

stated that, according to his apprehension of the law, the officials of workhouses were bound to admit all persons who had an order from the competent authorities, namely, Boards of Guardians, Relieving Officers, and Overseers; in cases of necessity they were bound to admit them even without orders, and if the House was full the Master was bound to refer the applicant to the Relieving Officer, whose duty it was to find relief in other quarters. With reference to putting persons in a clean condition into the same room with persons who were not clean, he had to state that all persons admitted to the workhouses were washed and cleansed before entering them, and were bound to be kept so while there.

said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, How many Candidates are on the list for admission to Sandhurst and Woolwich at the present time; also the average number of direct Commissions from each College annually for the last five years?

said, the number of Candidates for admission to Sandhurst was 164, and for Woolwich 266. The number of Commissions from Sandhurst during the last five years was thirty-four upon the average of each year, and from Woolwich eighty, of which number fifty were to the Artillery and thirty to the Engineers.

said, he rose to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether the Commissioners of Fisheries in Ireland have sent in their Report for the year 1860; and if not, what is the reason of the delay, and when it will be laid upon the Table of the House?

said, that the Commissioners of Fisheries in Ireland had sent in their Report for the previous year. It was in type, and would very shortly be laid upon the Table. He would endeavour to have it laid before the Select Committee on Monday.

moved to leave out the words "there shall be" and insert "it shall be lawful to appoint." The effect of his Amendment would be to make permissive instead of compulsory the appointment of the full number of the Council.

said, that the question had been already discussed and decided in Committee. Experience had shown that five Members were little enough to carry on the business of the Council.

said, that although the present Secretary for India might think five Members necessary his successor might be of a different opinion. Yet as the clause stood he would not hare the power of suspending the appointment.

proposed to insert words providing that one Member of the Council should be a barrister of not less than fire years' standing.

considered that five years' standing was too short a period to entitle a man to be sent to India as a Member of the Council, and moved an Amendment that "ten years" should be inserted instead of "five years."

supported the Amendment. The Judges of County Courts were required to be of seven years standing, and he thought that, compared with their duties, the functions which the legal Member of the Council would be called upon to discharge were very important, and that, therefore, a standing of five years was too brief a qualification.

observed that the proposition he made was in accordance with the practice in respect to legal appointments in India.

said, that the legal Member of the Governor's Council would have to superintend all the cases brought up from the different Legislatures of the respective Presidencies, and a standing of five years would hardly afford a sufficient security that the person appointed as legal Member was properly conversant with the duties required.

remarked that a barrister of five years' standing might never have held a brief in his life, and yet it was proposed to make him qualified to hold one of the highest offices in the State with a salary of £8,000 a year.

supported the Amendment.

stated that a barrister of five years' standing, though without practice in the Courts, might have had a great deal of practice in special pleading; and it would be better to leave it to the responsibility of the Secretary of State for India to select a proper person to fill the office.

thought it better not to insert either five or ten years' standing, but to leave it to the discretion of the Government to appoint the fittest person.

concurred in that suggestion. The legal Member of the Council would have peculiar duties to perform, and a practising barrister would not be better qualified than a person whose studies had been in a direction to fit him for the office.

was of opinion that, after all, the best security for the appointment of a person duly qualified for the performance of his duties, under the circumstances of the case, was to be found in the confidence which was to be reposed in the Government for the time being. It was easy to conceive that a man might be found young in years and standing, but very wise in experience, whom it might be desirable to send to India under the operation of the clause under discussion; and the Government, he contended, would be sufficiently controlled in the exercise of their power in making those appointments by the force of public opinion, as expressed in that House. For his own part, he should strongly advise the Government to avoid any definition of time in the clause, and simply confine its wording to the profession to which the proposed Member of the Council should belong.

said, that the principle of limitation was followed in the case of the Civil Service, and he did not see why an exception to that rule should be made in the present instance. Either the Government ought to be left unfettered altogether, or the provisions of the Bill should be consistent with one another. In restricting the choice of the Government, the only object was to secure that the appointments should be given to the man best legally qualified to fill it, instead of to some mere follower of the Government whom it was desired to provide for. He would support the Amendment.

said, if no test of the kind was necessary with regard to legal acquirements, why the restriction of ten years in the case of the civil element of the Council?

said, the insertion of a fire years' standing was intended to secure that the appointee should be possessed of something like legal qualifications. Experience, in such cases as that under consideration, was of as much value as ability; and he thought an experience of ten years was not too much to call for; and, therefore, he should vote for the Amendment, or even for some intermediate period, rather than for the five years, as inserted in the clause.

thought that a certain amount of fallacy lurked in the word "experience." Suppose, for instance, a barrister happened to have had an experience of five years at Nisi Prius or the Old Bailey, could that fact, he should like to know, be fairly held to qualify him for the position of a Member of the Legislative Council? It Was quite clear that for such a position experience was not the quality required—what was required was the qualifications of a jurist. In the case of the Civil Service the experience required was appropriate to the duties to be performed, and what it was desirable to have under the operation of the present clause was a gentleman of high legal attainments, which he contended might be found in a barrister of five years' standing. Indeed, according to the existing law, the Chief Justices of the three Presidencies were only required to be of five years' standing; He might further observe that if the Government were disposed to make an improper appointment, they would have means of doing so by the selection of a barrister who had been ten as well as of one who had been only five years at the Bar. Indeed, it was probable that a larger number of incompetent persons would be found in the former class, which would in all probability comprise a greater number of men who had failed in their profession.

maintained that the person appointed under the clause should be not only a barrister but a barrister of ten years' standing. If the Government were left unfettered in the matter, it was, he thought, quite possible that the Minister for India might discover more intelligence in a nephew or other relative than in all the rest of Her Majesty's subjects.

said, it appeared to him that the choice of the Government was sufficiently fettered by requiring a qualification of five years' standing. All that was wanted was to prove that a man was bonâ fide a barrister, and a qualification of five years would establish that as readily as one of tea years.

proposed after the word "meetings" to leave out "and from time to time to alter such rules" and insert "but such rules maybe subsequently amended at meetings for the purpose of making laws and regulations, subject to the assent of the Governor General." The object of the alteration was, he said, to place the Council of the Governor General in exactly the same position as the Councils of the Presidencies, in regard to the framing of regulations.

thought that the Council should have the power of making their own laws and regulations in the first instance, subject to the approval of the Governor General.

wished to know whether, under the Amendment, the Council would be able to discuss a Motion to ask the Governor General to amend the rules?

Certainly.

understood that the Governor General was to have the right of veto in regard to the regulations framed by the Council.

said, the main object of the Bill was to destroy the exclusive privileges hitherto enjoyed by the Covenanted Civil Servants of India. What was the object of Parliament originally in constituting the covenanted service? It was twofold—first to secure a body of well-educated and efficient public servants in India; and secondly to prevent the patronage of India from falling into the hands of the Crown. There was no doubt that it was admitted by Parliament in former days to be of essential importance to prevent this patronage from falling into the hands of the Crown, because it was supposed that it might lead to political jobbing and Parliamentary corruption, He did not know Whether they were less liable to those vices in these days, but there had been a great change in the opinion of Parliament upon this subject, and the great object of Government and Parliament at this day seemed to be to grasp at all the patronage of India, and take the whole of it into the hands of the Crown. Last year a Bill was passed for the purpose of amalgamating the Royal and the Indian armies. In a military point of view that might be a necessary measure, but the result had been that the whole patronage of the Indian army had been placed in the hands of the Crown. He did not mean to say that that patronage was likely to be abused as long as a Royal Prince who was not a political partisan, and who had he object to gain by political jobbing, was at the head of the army: but as regarded the navy, the patronage in that service had been prostituted for political purposes for many years past. If any person entertained any doubt upon the matter, he had only to take up the Navy List, and lie would find that nine-tenths of the Admirals, post-captains, and commanders, were members or connections of the great families. ["Oh, oh!"] He ventured to say that was the Case. He did not attach blame to any Government, but to the system that prevailed. How would this apply to the present Bill as regarded the Civil Service? When the two Services were originally established by Parliament in India the patronage of the covenanted Service was given to the Court of Directors, and that of the uncovenanted Service to the Governor General, because it was understood that it was to be confined to the Natives of India. But a succession of Governor Generals had in process of time, appropriated the best places in that service to Europeans. The mode in which that was done was that young men were sent out from this country to India, with recommendations to officers in high positions in India or to the Governor General himself, and they were at once appointed into the uncovenanted Service. This Bill proposed to give to the Governor General the power of transferring these young men to the covenanted Service. Now Parliament, in deciding a few years ago that the covenanted Service should be filled only by persons passing a competitive examination in this country, had given those appoint- ments to the public. But if this Bill passed, the effect would be to deprive the young men in this country of the positions which they would have been entitled to, and for which for many years, perhaps, they might been devoting themselves to study in order to qualify themselves. He knew of no mode by which such an abuse Could be prevented, unless by introducing a clause to confine the uncovenanted Service to the Natives of India. If such a clause as that were introduced he should offer no further opposition to the Bill.

said, that when the Secretary of State for India introduced these Bills he understood him to state that they had the general concurrence of the Council of India. He believed that that statement was not entirely correct, and he challenged the right hon. Baronet to state honestly and conscientiously whether he believed that, if the Members of the Council of India had an opportunity of recording their opinions upon the Bill now before the House, those observations would be borne out by them. Last year the right hon. Baronet proposed to his Council to bring into Parliament a Bill very similar to this one, but so far from the Council being favourable to the measure it was opposed by the majority of the Council, and was not introduced. Several members of the Indian Council (which it should be remembered consisted of only fifteen members altogether) expressed their dissent from the Bill; among others, Sir John Lawrence, whose name was a tower of strength on Indian affairs. Colonel Durand's dissent was, perhaps, the strongest of all for he stated that he was only allowed about five minutes to look at the Bill: and the right hon. Gentleman treated the House in much the same way. Instead of having considerable difficulty in getting these minutes of the Council of India, it ought to be a Standing Order that whenever dissents were expressed they should be laid on the Table with the Bill, in order that the House might have an opportunity of giving its decision with all the facts before it. Was the right hon. Gentleman ashamed of consulting the able men who sat at his Council? In the first instance there was a majority against the Bill, no less than eight Members of the Council having opposed it; subsequently some of the Members became reconciled to the measure, though it was in nearly all respects the same. He warned the House against passing this Bill, which he be- lieved to be fraught with injury to the country.

said, the Judges and collectors who were appointed in India to the control of districts larger than German principalities had all passed through a course of elaborate instruction in the college of Haileybury. During the last thirty or forty years men of very eminent abilities had been produced under that system, the tests to which they were subjected being of a very severe character. But under this Bill he could not perceive any guarantee that the persons to be appointed would continue to be men of equal acquirements, or even to possess a liberal education. The second clause empowered the Governor General to appoint any one who had merely been seven years in India and could pass an examination in the languages. But a residence of seven years, and a knowledge of the languages, did not constitute the qualifications that would enable a man to perform the functions of a Judge and collector; the first must have a good knowledge of Hindoo and Mahommedan law, and the second have a practical knowledge of revenue systems, and both must be well read in the acts and regulations of the Government. It was true that the appointment was subject to the approval of the Home Government; but when was it likely that the Home Council would reverse a selection made by the Governor General? The Bill also affected the rights of a class of qualified Natives of India, who for twenty-five years had administered the civil law. The principal Sudder Ameens, the Sudder Ameens, and the Moonsiffs, underwent a rigid examination before they were appointed to their respective offices, and he (Colonel Sykes) could state from digests which he had published from official Returns of the administration of civil justice for twelve successive years in the three governments of India that these functionaries had decided 97 to 99 per cent out of every 100 cases with few appeals. Of the first class there were 64, of the second 81, and of the third—corresponding to the Judges of our small-cause courts—there were 493. These were Native gentlemen who had qualified themselves to administer the civil law in India, and their decisions gave universal satisfaction. What he feared was that the places of these men would be sought by English barristers of five years' standing, who would be glad to take them with the prospect of being afterwards promoted to judgeships. His right hon. Friend must be aware that the substitutions of English barristers for Native Judges must be at an enormously increased cost. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would take steps to provide that whoever was appointed should be subjected to the same intellectual and practical tests which had hitherto been adopted. The Indian Government had the merit of precedence over the English Government in having been the first to establish county courts, also to impose a test of the capabilities of pleaders, and in fixing the maximum cost of suits.

said, that one point in regard to this Bill seemed to have been overlooked. When Parliament took upon itself the government of India, it declared that all the contracts and liabilities entered into by the East India Company should be binding on the Crown. Now, it was a matter of great doubt among the Civil Servants of the late East India Company how far this Bill, if it became law, would affect them in respect to their Civil Service fund and their Annuity fund. These funds were maintained half by support from the State, and half by a per centage from the salaries. It was clear that if the number of covenanted Civil Servants was limited a blow was struck at the very root of these funds. He, therefore, wished to have from the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles Wood) a clear statement of how he proposed to treat this question? Parliament was pledged to support the funds, and it ought to take care that neither the servants nor their wives and families suffered from the passing of the Bill.

said, that the more he considered the subject the more he deprecated the course which Parliament was pursuing in regard to legislation for India. He thought it a great misfortune that the direct government of our Eastern Empire had been transferred to the Crown; and also that Parliament should have excluded from its benches Members of the Council. It seemed to him that in doing so it had, as it were, knocked out its own brains as regarded Indian legislation. But if it was not to have the assistance of gentlemen in this country—of gentlemen who had experience in Indian legislation and Indian affairs—it appeared to him most important that the House should be supplied with all the information that could be furnished it, and amongst these he considered the dissents of the Council held an impor- tant place. The right hon. Gentleman had quoted a very valuable saying of Mountstuart Elphinstone, namely, that legislation for India should be Blow, gradual, and well considered. But would any hon. Gentleman say that those epithets could be applied to the Bill before the House?

submitted that hon. Members had not yet had time to read the papers which had been distributed to them, and the attentive perusal of which was necessary before they proceeded to the details of this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman might tell them that they had notice of the measure last Session; but the House would remember that several eminent authorities had expressed their dissent to the Bill of last year. It was now stated that Colonel Durand and Mr. Mills had modified their dissent in favour of this Bill; but had Mr. M'Naghten, Mr. Mangles, Sir John Lawrence, and Sir Henry Montgomery done so? If that had been the case the fact would certainly have been stated. He asked whether it was right that so little weight should be given to the opinion of Members in Council for India? He bad said on a previous occasion, and the more he considered the subject the more he felt that unless important Amendments were made in this Bill great reluctance would be shown on the part of candidates to enter into competition for the Indian Civil Service, and such was evidently the view of those members of Council, whose disputes to the Bill, of which the right hon. Gentleman had given notice last year, were now before the House. A deputation had lately waited on the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles Wood), when, he was told, an address was made by Mr. Anderson, one of the Civil Servants, in which the claims of the Civil Service were set forth with an ability and a moderation which excited the highest praise on the part of all who heard him. The right hon. Gentleman himself was struck with the manner in which he laid the claims of the Civil Service before him; but, nevertheless, the Amendments which it was proposed to introduce into the Bill were not such as those claims required.

said, the right hon. Gentleman had stated that there was not a sufficient number of competitors for the Civil Service; but the Returns showed that in 1857, when there were 12 places to dispose of, there were 60 competitors; in 1858, with 20 places, there were 62 competitors; in 1859, with 40 places, there were 119 competitors; and 1860, with 80 places, there were 154 competitors. If the Government had offered more places there would undoubtedly have been more competitors; but they had offered few places and then said the number of candidates were so few that the Civil Service must be thrown open. He believed that a Bill more precipitately introduced and more in opposition to the opinions of those who were best qualified to give an opinion upon it never had been introduced into Parliament. All the wisest and most judicious persons acquainted with India were against the opening of the Civil Service in the way proposed. Any calamity that in future might fall upon India through the operation of this Bill would be attributable to the right hon. Gentleman. It appeared from the Friend of India that already two gentlemen had been appointed to the Civil Service who were unacquainted with the Native languages. Was that a matter of slight importance? If they wished to rule India in a right manner those only should be appointed who knew something of the language, habits, and even prejudices of the people.

said, that in order to a proper consideration of this important measure, all the information possessed by the Government on the subject should be laid before the House. There was no question that the "Dissents" were of the utmost importance; and the House ought to know to what points of the Bill the "Dissents" objected. It was also most desirable to ascertain whether Sir John Lawrence was or was not favourable to this measure.

thought, as there was no Amendment before the House, it might be presumed that the principle of the Bill was approved, provided such restrictions were introduced as would prevent the abuse of the new system. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that very stringent restrictions were necessary; but the House ought to be in possession of the opinion of the Council of India on the subject before it could decide what these restrictions ought to be. When the Council was originally established it was clearly intended that the Members should have the power of placing their opinions on record, and it never was contemplated that such petty forms should be established as would prevent them expressing their opinions. The papers which had been laid before the House referred to the Bill of last year. He had placed on the table a short time ago a Motion for an Address for copies of any minutes of dissent by the Indian Council on this Bill; but the Secretary of State had informed him that there were no such papers. He should like to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether that was the case now? He warned the House not to allow it to be established as a practice that the House should not be put in possession of the opinion of the Members of the Council, or that those opinions should not be placed on record and produced for some small technical reason which had never been contemplated when the Council was established. If such knowledge was kept back, the House was not in possession of all the information it ought to have, and which might materially influence its decision.

wished to call the attention of the House to the view which had been taken by the hon. Baronet who had just spoken. He did not think that view at all to the advantage of the Council. Nothing would so soon conduce to the entire dissolution of the Council as to impress them with the idea that they were constituted for the purpose of supervising the relations between the Secretary of State and the House of Commons. The object for which the Council was established was that it should intervene between the Secretary of State and the Government of India, Every one felt that it would not be wise to allow a Secretary of State to send out despatches to the Government of India without the intervention of some independent body, and the Council was established as a check upon any ill-advised or indiscreet proceeding of the Secretary of State. It was perfectly clear, in a constitutional point of view, that the Secretary of State, when he desired to invite the House of Commons to legislate, had nothing to do with the Council. He might ask their opinion, just as he might ask (anybody else's, and he might, if he liked, lay it on the table; but it would only be the opinion of so many individuals. Legislation was not one of the functions vested in the Council by law; and to encourage an impression in the Council that they were to intervene in the conduct of business in Parliament, having been specifically excluded from the House of Commons, would be to lead to their certain dissolution. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was in the habit of frequently consulting the Board pf Inland Revenue, but if that Board took to minuting the acts of the Chancellor of the Exchequer they would very soon have to be dismissed. If the House of Commons felt itself incompetent to go on with this Bill and wished to have the opinion of the Council upon it, the Parliamentary way of obtaining it was to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, and then call the members of the Council before it as witnesses. But the fact was the House did not want to know what their opinion was, because it did not intend to shift to its own shoulders the responsibility of the Minister of the Crown. It was utterly in vain to attempt to induce the House to undertake the detailed arrangement of the Civil Service in India. It relied on the Minister to do that, and on him the responsibility would ultimately rest. At the same time it was of the utmost importance to inspire the Civil Servants in India with confidence in Her Majesty's Government—they ought to feel that when abroad they were supervised and protected by the Home Government. He hoped, therefore, that the House; would go into Committee, and that such modifications would be made in the Bill as would dispel the alarm which had been raised.

, in reference to the Minutes of the Council of India, said that he had a perfect recollection of what took place when the matter was formerly discussed, and he understood they were to be laid before the House if required. It appeared that important papers connected with the Bill were not laid before the Council for them to deliberate, upon, and, therefore, it was the more necessary that the House should be fully informed of all that had taken place in the Council; and if the House felt a real sense of the importance of this subject they would insist upon the production of these papers, before they proceeded further, He confessed he felt great alarm at the baste with which the House was asked to make vital changes in the administration of India.

said, he could not agree with his hon. Friend (Mr. Ayrton) in his theory of the duties of the Council, which was established, in his opinion, not only generally to advise the Secretary of State on all matters relating to the good government of India, but particularly in regard to Bills like the present, which most materially related to the administration of affairs in that country. It was the duty of the Council to give their opinion on these matters, and that opinion ought to be laid before the House. No doubt, Parliament had a right to call far the Minutes made by the Council, and (hen, if anything important and requiring further explanation should appear in those Minutes, the House had a right to call the Members of the Council before a Select Committee. If the Members of the Council bad changed their opinion, why was not a short memorandum signed by them, stating that they no longer entertained the same objections as heretofore to the. Bill? No doubt, there was a majority in favour of the Bill as it now stood; but he thought the right hon. Gentleman would have better consulted the interests of Indian legislation if he had laid the "Dissents" before the House. It was assumed that this Bill was brought in solely on the responsibility of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles Wood); but the measure had been in the contemplation of the Government for many years past. He regretted that the Secretary of State had not fortified himself with the opinions of Lord Dalhousie and Lord Canning, of Mr. Halliday, and Sir George Clerk, all of whom recognized the necessity for this Bill, It was for the interest of India that the Civil Servants should be kept at the lowest number possible. He agreed with the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Willoughby) that when any alteration was about to be made in the position of the Civil Servants they had a right to ask the Government what was to be their position in future. He thought that when an alteration of this sort was made the Civil Servants had a just right to ask the Secretary of State in what position they would be placed if certain contingencies happened which might happen under this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman ought to go further. The funds were now in a flourishing position, and it would be better for the Government at once to make some arrangement respecting them. If a large number of persons now came into the service this fund must necessarily deteriorate, and the Civil Servants, on the other hand, would have acted wisely in offering to give up some of the extra interest at present paid on account of the fund, on condition that the Government gave them some security in the event of their suffering injury from the provisions of the Bill.

said, he wished to draw the attention of the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State to the subject of the duties of the Council. He believed that the House was induced to decide that the Members of the Indian Council should not hare seats in the House of Commons upon the understanding that they were to have full information given as to the subject matters discussed by the Council. The Council were to minute their opinions, and he distinctly understood that hon. Members would have a right to move for all the Minutes, in order that the House might be fully informed of the merits of every case discussed. He believed, however, that there were many Minutes on the subject of this Bill which had not been produced, and it was treating the House unfairly to keep them back. He was not surprised at the apprehensions entertained by the Civil Servants; but he did not share in those apprehensions, for their own ability and knowledge would secure them against injustice. He thought, however, that be right hon. Baronet ought to give some assurance on the subject.

was in hopes that when the House had agreed, without a division, to the principle of the Bill, they would have been spared discussion on this stage, especially as many topics had been touched on which were not very relevant to the subject matter of the measure. It was satisfactory, at all events, to find that the Bill had been treated throughout in no 'party spirit. It was the intention of the noble Lord who preceded him in office (Lord Stanley) to have introduced a similar measure, and the noble Lord had stated in the fairest manner that he felt as much responsible for it as he (Sir Charles Wood) was, and would give it the most cordial support. There could be no better proof of the absence of all party spirit With regard to the Council pf India, he thought the question which had been raised respecting the functions of that body had been settled last Session. The Council were to be the advisers, and in some cases a check, upon the Secretary of State in his executive capacity. But the Secretary of State was not bound to be guided by their opinions, or even to take their advice, in his legislative capacity. The Secretary of State for India was as unfettered and as free as the President of the Board of Control had ever been. The President of the Board of Control introduced Bills at his discretion, consulting the Board of Directors only when he chose to do so; and it was certainly never the intention of the Legislature to impose upon the Secretary of State fetters which were not imposed upon the President of the Board of Control. This question was raised when the amalgamation of the two armies was discussed. He then stated in the clearest terms this doctrine respecting the functions of the Indian Council; and the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli) entirely concurred in his views on this point. The words of the Act itself were conclusive, and clearly established that what he, as a Member of the Government, might do in introducing a Bill was not a question for the decision of the Council of India. As to the opinions of the Council on this Bill he had stated before that he introduced it with the general concurrence of the members of the Council. It was not true that it had been framed with the object of benefiting a member of the Council, but after the Bill had been agreed upon a case arose unexpectedly, which showed the great advantage to be derived from its provisions, which would authorize the appointment to a most important office of a man who was a member of the Council, but who, above all others, was the most fitted for it. The Minutes referred to by the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Forster) were recorded against the Bill of last year, and some of the Members of the Council objected to their being produced against the Bill of this year; but they did not object to the production of them with the memoranda appended to them as they appeared on the paper. He had been asked why he had not fortified himself with regard to this measure by the opinions of men of authority on Indian questions. His reply was that he had done so, and had on a former occasion referred to the recorded opinions of such men as Lord Auckland, Lord Hardinge, Lord Elphinstone, Lord Dalhousie, and Lord Canning. The fact was this—the persons who were in authority in India, and had the responsibility of making appointments, felt the necessity of some such provisions as those of this Bill being enacted, that they might find proper persons to fill those offices, or, to use a common phrase, to put the right man in the right place. It was, therefore, not without the authority of the Civil Service itself that he had introduced a Bill of this kind. With reference to the funds of the Civil Service of India, he had received some representations from it. A deputation of the Civil Service had waited on him, and stated the case very fairly. But they felt themselves that it would be impossible to include in this Bill any provision that would ensure the object they sought; but they wished him to state distinctly in the House what his opinion was on the subject. This he had not the least reluctance to do. His opinion was that they were not likely to be injured by any possible application of the provisions of the Bill, the object of which was, as he had before stated, to provide for special and exceptional cases. He could not, however, deny that there was a possibility, very slight though it was, of their being injured in their funds by the provisions of the Bill; but he had expressed to them the opinion which he had promised to repeat in the House, that if it should turn out that the existing members of the Civil Service were injured in respect of their funds, either for themselves or their families, by any use or abuse of the powers conferred by the Bill, they would have a fair right to claim compensation. This, they said, was all they could fairly ask, and they would be perfectly satisfied if he clearly stated this in the House. He had not the slightest objection to give them the full benefit of the statement. If the existing members of the Civil Service could show that they sustained any injury from the use or abuse of the powers of this Bill they would have a fair right to be indemnified for any loss.

said, the members of the Civil Service now in London were not satisfied with this Bill; on the contrary, they objected to it, with or without restrictions. They thought it altogether unnecessary; and felt that it could have but one result—that it would gradually sap and destroy the noble Service to which they belonged. The time for the consideration of the Bill was very short; and the members of the Civil Service had not had any communication with their colleagues in India. It was never supposed that such a Bill would be brought in this Session. In March last there was no intention of doing so; but it had been brought forward in an extraordinary manner. Up to last night it stood as the third of the Indian Bills on the paper; and, the present discussion not being expected to come on till a late hour that evening, several hon. Members who were prepared to discuss it were not then present. For the satisfaction of the Civil Service they had only the right hon. Gentleman's ipse dixit—no doubt a just one; but they could not tell how long he would be in office, and they would like something equivalent to the statement to be inserted in the measure.

rose to move, as an Amendment, the omission of the word "heretofore," in line 11, and the insertion, after "made," of the words "before the commencement of the present Session." In moving the insertion of those words he begged to draw attention to the wording of this clause. It was notorious that within the last six months the Indian Government, under a strong pressure brought to bear upon it by the press of Calcutta, had gone much further in appointing persons out of the service to high civil offices than they had heretofore done. He referred, more especially, to the creation of a number of Small Cause Courts in the Mofussil, and to the appointment to them of barristers on high salaries. These barristers were gentlemen who had only been resident for a year or two in the country, and were wholly ignorant of the languages—in fact, so ignorant as to require the aid of interpreters; yet under the wording of Clause 1 these appointments would be made effectual and valid. Now, he contended that the restrictions which would be applied to appointments in Clause 2 should also be made applicable to these appointments, or else they would have a number of offices filled in a manner contrary to the deliberate opinion of this House as expressed in Clause 2. Probably few subjects were more investigated and inquired into by the Colonization Committee, on which he had the honour to serve, than that of these Small Cause Courts. By the evidence of one set of witnesses, consisting of lawyers, barristers, and pleaders practising at the Sudder Courts of the different Presidency towns, it appeared that the one thing needed for the general improvement of India was "more lawyers." On the other hand, it was strongly contended by witnesses who possessed great practical knowledge of the habits and customs of the Natives and the country—namely, planters, merchants, civilians, and military men holding high civil and political appointments—that if there was one thing more calculated to add to the unpopularity of our Government it would be the introduction of English law to be administered in the English language by English barristers in the Mofussil courts. They pointed out the great hardship that would be inflicted on the Natives, plaintiffs, defendants, vakeels, and spectators, were the proceedings to be carried on in English, as they understood merely their own language; and that it would most assuredly be regarded by the Natives throughout India as an act of the grossest injustice, and, to make use of an expression of Mr. Hawkins, one of the witnesses examined before the Committee, "as a badge of conquest," designed to degrade them. He could remember when it was deemed expedient to abolish the Persian language in those courts, in order to introduce the vernacular languages—that is, Hindustani and Bengali. He would read one or two extracts from answers of witnesses who appeared before the Committee. Mr. Mackenzie, an indigo planter, in regard to the course of legislation which was being pursued, said—

"Since the time of Macaulay's Commission we have had a wholesale manufactory of laws in India. The laws we have introduced one year we have repeated the next. We had the Legislative Council making laws; we had the Sudder Court of Calcutta giving the construction of the law; and in many cases the terms of the law and the construction were quite opposed. I think that the great mistake we make in legislating for India is that we legislate for the people of India after our ideas and the habits and customs of this country, quite forgetting that they are entirely inapplicable to those of the Natives."

said—

"The Natives have shown a strong repugnance to any idea of extending the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court."

Lord Macaulay also expressed a strong opinion of the dread among the Natives of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, and he spoke from documents and petitions that were presented to the Council. He would not, however, abuse the indulgence of the Committee by quoting any more of the evidence to this effect. It was enough to say that it was generally admitted by the Committee that, although these Small Cause Courts might be popular at Calcutta, yet the feeling was the very reverse as regarded their jurisdiction being extended to the Mofussil. The causes which were decided in Calcutta were generally simple contracts, or questions of sale, or any minor criminal actions, but they were quite different from the complicated cases which occurred in the Mofussil courts with reference to the proprietorship of land, the division of property, the land assessment, the settlement of boundary disputes and resumption laws. Again, it would be impossible to procure the necessary number of experienced barristers at Calcutta; and he could not believe that a young man, practising at the Bar in England and earning £500 a year, would be induced to relinquish that for a life of expatriation in a remote station in Bengal, far away from the civilized world, on a salary of £1,200 or £1,500 a year. It would, therefore, give rise to immense political power and patronage, because the Secretary of State for India would be enabled to oblige an avowed or shaky supporter of the Government of the day by providing any one to whom he was indebted for services rendered at his election with one of these appointments. India would, therefore, be flooded with briefless lawyers, and electioneering agents. A great injustice would, at the same time, be inflicted upon that useful and laborious class of public servants known as Moonsiffs, Sudder Ameens, and Principal Sudder Ameens, who are either Natives or East Indians, as they were being gradually superseded and absorbed by the Small Cause Courts.

said, as it appeared that these Small Cause Courts had been established within the last year, and as there was no security that the persons who had been appointed had any knowledge of Mahommedan or Hindoo law, by which civil causes were determined, he objected to the clause confirming the appointments unless the parties were made subject to examination. And no future appointments should be made without an examination testifying the capacity of the candidates for the duties which would be required of them.

wished to know whether the object of the clause was to make what had been done the rule for the future? If so, he should object to the clause, though he was not unwilling to give the Government a Bill of indemnity for what had hitherto been done.

said, the first and second clauses should be kept entirely separate, as they had nothing in the world to do with each other. The other night he stated that up to the present time certain appointments had been made in India with the common consent of every body in India, not excepting the most rigid sticklers for the rights of the covenanted Service. The noble Lord his predecessor in the office of Secretary for India took the opinion of the then law officers on the subject of these appointments, and, according to that opinion, they were illegal. To remedy this state of things the first part of the first clause rendered all such appointments as had been made legal; and by the second part of the clause similar appointments would be made legal for the future. The second clause had a different object, and enabled the authorities in India, with the consent of the Secretary of State in Council, to appoint in special cases to situations hitherto exclusively reserved for the covenanted Service.

thought it right to confirm the past appointments; but it became important to know from what date the appointments were to be confirmed.

said, he should not object to meet the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. VansiUart) half-way, and should assent to the insertion of the words "before the 1st of April last," after the word "made," the word "heretofore" being omitted.

objected to the clause on the ground that it would empower the Governor General to appoint military men to perform civil duties, not only in the non-regulation, but also in the regulation Provinces. He could understand the existence of such a power in the old Court of Directors; but they were now engaged in providing statutory powers for the Governor General; and they ought to understand clearly what these powers were, or else consent at once to give the Governor General carte blanche. It appeared to him that under the clause the Governor General might appoint a military man to be a Judge in the Sudder Ameen.

also maintained that the latter portion of the clause went far beyond the exigencies of the case which it had been framed to meet. He could not see, for example, why, because an indemnity was granted for appointments illegally made in the past, a power should be granted, as was proposed by the latter portion of the clause, to make "similar appointments" for the future. He should, under these circumstances, suggest the omission of the latter portion of the clause.

said, it was necessary to use the word "similar," inasmuch as if the word "same" only were employed the clause would not apply to the different appointments of the same character.

, notwithstanding the high authority of the right hon. Baronet, must maintain that the use of the word "same" would be much safer than that of the word "similar."

saw no necessity for the first clause at all. Nobody objected to or questioned the appointments to which it referred.

said, that the law officers of the Crown had suggested the clause as requisite to render legal appointments which everybody approved.

wished to move the omission of the words "or similar" in the latter part of the clause providing that appointments to "the same or similar offices, places, and employments" to those hitherto filled by uncovenanted servants, contrary to the 33rd of George III., and which were now to be legalized, might hereafter be filled in like manner. Unless his Amendment were adopted, every appointment would come within the scope of such general words as "or similar." Colonel Durand's appointment as Foreign Secretary, and the whole of the secrétariate appointments, would be thrown open by the terms of the clause. He, therefore, moved the omission of these words, in order that there might be no mistake as to the appointments intended for outsiders, and those which were to remain for the Civil Service.

said, the hon. Member for Windsor mistook the meaning of this clause. Colonel Durand would be appointed under the next clause to a place reserved for the covenanted Service. The words "or similar" would have this effect:—Take the case of a Sudder Ameen. Nobody objected to a Native or an uncovenanted servant being appointed to such an office; but unless these words were retained it would be impossible to appoint such persons to such situations, except in the identical situations which they had held before.

said, that a Sudder Ameen had never been a covenanted civil servant. Certain defined appointments had hitherto been assumed to belong to the covenanted Civil Service; and the system had grown up in this manner. From time to time the old Court of Directors sent out despatches to define what appointments should belong to their civil servants, and those offices had consequently been regarded as employments restricted to that particular Service. But all other appointments had been deemed open appointments, to be held by Natives, military men, or anybody whom the Governor General, or the Governors of Presidencies might select. By omitting the words no injustice or inconvenience would be done to any one, whereas the retention of them would practically be putting an end to the Civil Service.

said, he had been in India several years, unconnected with the Government, and could, therefore, form an independent opinion. His experience was that the Civil Service, though a very efficient body of men, were not sufficiently numerous to carry on the duties devolved upon them; it was, therefore, found necessary to appoint officers from regiments to, perform those duties, and the object of this Bill was to facilitate such appointments, which were found to be conducive to the good government of India. He thought the omission of the words would place an inconvenient restriction on the Government.

thought the words so flexible as to include all appointments, and offered no safeguard whatever to the Civil Service.

objected to the word "similar" as wide and loose, and was not prepared to place the interests of the Civil Servants of India in jeopardy by the introduction of such words. If it was found that an uncovenanted Civil Servant had ever filled the office of Judge, magistrate, or collector, the word "similar" in the clause would permit of such appointments, being made in any or all the provinces of India.

suggested words to the effect that where a class of offices had heretofore been filled by uncovenanted servants then the same class of offices might be filled hereafter in a like manner.

said, he had proposed to make the clause apply to the same class of offices to which uncovenanted servants had been before appointed. He could only say the words of the clause had been most carefully considered, and he believed those which were in the Bill were the best that could be found. All that was wanted was to continue the power of making appointments, which up to the present time no one had questioned but the law officers of the Crown.

thought that if it was intended to do away with the Civil Service of India it should be done openly, and not by a side-wind. The clauses were most imperfectly drawn, and he would suggest that the Bill should be submitted to some able lawyer to put into practical shape.

said, an English and an Indian lawyer had been consulted in the preparation of the clause.

proposed to leave out "under the special circumstances of the ease," and to substitute "as a special and exceptional case."

thought the alteration unnecessary.

proposed to insert the following words:—

"Except in the departments of Finance and Customs in the Presidency towns, no person shall be so appointed who has not resided for a period of at least seven years in India, and shall not have passed an examination in the vernacular language of the district in which he is to be employed."

thought that an examination in more than one of the Indian languages should be required.

also thought that every candidate should be required to pass an examination in Hindustani as well as in the vernacular of the district.

moved to add the following words to the Amendment proposed by the Secretary for India, "and in all other local departmental tests which are now or may hereafter be prescribed for covenanted Civil Servants in a like case." He proposed the Amendment, he said, as an act of justice to the covenanted Servants and as an act of security to the public. Any ensign in a marching regiment or any idle young man about town might go out to India, and by reading half an hour a day with a Moonshee might in a few months qualify himself to pass an examination in the Native language, and such an examination was, therefore, no test of his fitness for appointment. On the other hand, the covenanted servants had to pass two very severe examinations, involving not only a knowledge of the languages, but also a knowledge of the duties of the collectorate, of the mode of keeping village accounts, and of revenue and judicial matters generally. It would be manifestly unfair to allow a non-covenanted person to be appointed without examination over the heads of covenanted servants, who had been so severely tested. It was a mere act of justice to the latter that non-covenanted candidates should be subjected to the same tests which they had to undergo.

said, he could not be expected to defend the two provisions which in deference to the wish of the House he had agreed to insert in the Bill, although he believed it would be better without them. He admitted that a residence of seven years in India and a knowledge of Hindustani and other languages were not of themselves sufficient tests of fitness for office, and believed that these requirements might interfere with the appointment of very competent persons to certain posts. It was absurd to insist on a knowledge of Hindustani from a non-covenanted person appointed to a situation in the Madras Presidency, where no one spoke that language. It was necessary for a civil servant, who was liable to be Sent from one part of the country to another, to possess a much more general knowledge than a man who filled a special office for which he was peculiarly qualified, and it was unreasonable to demand the same qualification from the one as from the other. The Committee must not, however"; run away with the notion that because certain qualifications were not specified in the Bill they would not be required. There were many tests imposed on civil servants at present of which no mention was made in any Act of Parliament, and the Government would still have it in their power to require any qualification they deemed necessary, though they were not prescribed in the Bill. The disadvantage of inserting them in the Bill was that it might exclude from office a perfectly competent person because he did not possess qualifications which were really unnecessary. He had already cancelled an appointment made by the Governor General and another made by the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal, and there was no disposition on the part of the Government to allow offices to be held by improper persons. As a general rule it would be quite right that a non-covenanted candidate should exhibit the same qualifications as a civil servant, but it was essential that the Government should have a discretion in exceptional cases. Therefore he did not think the Amendment of the hon. Member desirable.

begged to inform the right hon. Gentleman that Hindustani was understood both in the Madras and Bombay Presidencies; indeed he had travelled a great deal in India, and he never passed through any district where Hindustani was not spoken.

corroborated the hon. and gallant Member as to Hindustani being generally spoken in India. He held it necessary that the test should be enforced by Act of Parliament.

deemed it essential that qualification for office should be proved before any appointment was made, as otherwise incompetent persons might slip into the service.

said, that Colonel Durand had stated that the check which was provided in this Bill would be no protection against jobbery.

hoped that the right hon. Baronet would consider this Amendment. Why should not persons who were appointed to situations in India be subjected to the same tests as those to which candidates for the covenanted Civil Service were required to submit?

thought that a residence of seven years in India and a knowledge of the language of the country was a sufficient test.

said, he did not think that all these important matters ought to be left to the regulation of the Secretary of State in Council. He wished to know whether the hon. Member for Kinross (Mr. Adam) intended that the gentlemen appointed to high offices under this clause should enter into the engagements to produce their private accounts, not to trade, and to avoid anything in the shape of bribery and corruption, which were now required of covenanted servants?

said, that those engagements would be rendered necessary by a clause which he intended to propose to follow Clause 3 of the Bill.

moved that the following words be added at the end of the clause:—"And he shall pass the same examination as that prescribed for Civil servants in like cases."

thought this question had been already decided. He might mention that, having consulted persons who were well acquainted with the part of India referred to, he found that Hindustani was not the language generally spoken in the Madras Presidency.

said, there were districts which were attached sometimes to one province and sometimes to another, and it was idle to suppose that the inhabitants did not speak Hindustani. At Nagpore and Sangur, for instance, all commissariat contracts were entered into in the Hindustani language.

thought the wording of the clause, which only required a knowledge of the vernacular was sufficient, but the member of the covenanted Service, who was obliged to possess a more extended knowledge of Indian languages, would, of course, be in a more favourable position.

proposed the following clause:—

"Any person who shall have been or shall be appointed to any office, place, or employment under this Act Shall be subject to the provisions of any Statute, Rule, or Order, now in force prohibiting the receipt of presents, trading, or other acts by Covenanted Civil Servants."

The object of this clause was to carry out the system first instituted by Lord Olive, since which date our Indian administration had improved and, prospered, as was ably shown in the well-known essay of Lord Macaulay.

said, that his objection to the clause was that the covenanted servants were prevented accenting presents by regulations and oaths, and not by Act of Parliament. He did not see why it should be inserted in this Bill and made applicable by Acts of Parliament to one set of Servants, when it was not applicable to the other. Bribery was punished by the penal code, and no further provision was necessary.

asked the right hon. Baronet if he did not intend to do anything with reference to the question which they had just divided on? He really did not believe that the House knew what they had been dividing about. It was a positive fact that by this division they had legalized the taking of bribes. The right hon. Baronet had said that it was already provided for by the penal code relative to the uncovenanted Service. But this was not the uncovenanted Service, and it would be quite competent for any person sent out by the right hon. Gentleman to engage in trade, and he wished to know how, in that case, they could prevent the receipt of presents?

said, there would be an effectual check put upon the taking of bribes when the appointments were made.

said, he thought the clause altogether unnecessary. There was no such check thought necessary with regard to the army, and he did not see why they should make a special provision in this case. When the House was asked to include a general principle against corruption, to refuse it led to an improper inference which they ought not to be exposed to.

said, the clause involved a general principle. The question was whether these servants were to be allowed to do what the covenanted servants were forbidden to do. Was it unreasonable that they should be precluded from receiving presents, trading, and doing other acts which the other civil servants in India were not allowed to do? Upon the former question he voted with the Government, because he thought the matter might be left to the responsible advisers of the Crown. But this clause embodied a principle, and he could not conceive how the Committee could reject it. The rejection of it by possibility implied that the new class of servants might be allowed to do these things. ["No!"] He did not suppose that the Government had such an intention; but when the Committee was asked to include in its legislation a general provision against what was and ought to be considered corruption, the negativing that proposition led to an undue and improper inference, to which Parliament ought not to be exposed. For that reason he wished to press upon the consideration of the Government whether there could be any harm whatever in allowing the clause to be introduced.

reminded the House that the question regarding the clause had been disposed of.

stated, that the prohibition of the covenanted Servants was embodied in the 33 Geo. III., c. 52, and, therefore, the Clause he proposed ought to be embodied in this Bill.

warned the House that they were by this Bill putting in the small end of the wedge that would fructify to an extent which they perhaps little anticipated. They had created an enormous Service which it would be absolutely necessary to keep within strict rules and regulations, otherwise it would disgrace them in India. He hoped the hon. Member for Kinross would bring the question to which he had adverted forward upon the Report.

hoped, to use the metaphor of this hon. Gentleman, that the small end of the wedge which he had put in would not fructify into a debate at this stage of the Bill. This was the first time he had heard a discussion upon a clause after it had been decided upon by the House.

proposed to limit the Judges in Bengal to a number not exceeding twelve. As the Bill stood the Secretary for India would have an unlimited power of appointing Judges at salaries from £3,000 to £8,000 a year, a state of things which he deprecated.

asked the right hon. Gentleman in what manner vacancies in the number of the Judges were to be filled up?

said, that the Judges would be appointed by Her Majesty. With respect to the Amendment proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Cork, he could assure the Committee that there would be no desire on the part of the Government to have more Judges than were necessary. There were at present at Calcutta three of the Superior Court, and ten—five regular and five additional—of the Sudder Court; therefore, he did not wish to limit himself to twelve as he could not now state the precise number which would be necessary. There were at present thirteen; and he would not object to have the limit fifteen, but it did not follow that that number would be appointed.

was willing to make the limit fifteen, but he must certainly object to an unlimited power of appointment.

objected to the power proposed to be given to the Secretary of State to appoint as many Judges as he might think proper.

wanted to know how the Judges were to be paid and appointed?

said, the object was to make such arrangements under the Bill as would ensure speedy justice in India. He hoped the Committee would not tie him down to a certain number of Judges until he had seen how the new system worked.

moved to insert the words "or attorneys" after the word "barristers," his object being to give the right hon. Gentleman a wider choice in appointments.

said, he should be sorry to enter into a discussion on the comparative merits of the two classes of lawyers. He saw no reasons for departing from the qualifications imposed by the present law, and be must, therefore, object to the Amendment.

moved an Amendment mating it necessary that a barrister shall be of ten years' standing before being eligible for a Judgeship, instead of five, as proposed by the clause. Ten years was the standing required from the members of the covenanted Service, and they passed through a much more severe and complete preparation than barristers.

said, that five years was the present qualification, and, having been found sufficient to secure competent persons for the office, he was not disposed to alter it.

said, the effect of the Bill would be to swamp the Courts by the admission of untrained Civil Servants, who ought to be barristers. He would propose that a moiety of the Court should be barristers, and he would, therefore, move to leave out "one-third" and insert "one-half."

said, the object he had in view was to insure a due proportion both of lawyers and civilians. The Government wanted the legal knowledge of the lawyers with the local knowledge of the Civil Servants. The Bill, therefore, provided that one-third of the Judges should be barristers and one-third Civil Servants, leaving it to the Government to choose the remaining third from either one class or the other, or from Natives or other qualified persons. To insist on one-half of the Judges being barristers would give the lawyers an undue proportion.

quoted the opinion of an eminent Sudder Judge to show that a previous knowledge of the principles of law was most desirable as regarded the Judges, and he thought the Motion of his hon. Friend was a very reasonable one.

denied that he had brought forward this Motion in any legal sense. He submitted it in the public interest.

supported the Government proposition.

, in line 16, moved to leave out the words "including the Chief Justice," the effect of which would be to leave the office of Chief Justice open to other than banisters. He contended that it was extremely probable that civilians who had acted as Judges, having to deal with questions of Mahommedan and Hindoo law, might be more qualified to act as supreme Judges than barristers. He trusted this "rag of exclusion" would not be kept up at a time when throwing open these offices was the general principle of legislation.

had endeavoured to constitute the Court as fairly as he could between the two professions. The courts in which justice was administered by English lawyers had given great satisfaction. He thought it essential that the Chief Justice should be a trained lawyer.

moved as an Amendment to insert in line 18, after "service," the words "Provided also that hereafter no member of the Civil Service shall be appointed a Judge of such High Court who shall not have previously undergone a legal training." He had known men in India who had never decided a case nominated to the S udder Bench. Suppose, instead of the eminent lawyer who had just been made Lord Chancellor, the Government had appointed a Commissioner of Inland Revenue or a Receiver of Customs, what would have been said? This class of officers were appointed Judges in India; yet it was not a court of first instance, but a high court of appeal.

said, the members of the Civil Service had considerable legal training. By the proposed constitution of the Court their knowledge of the country would be combined with the regular legal training of the other Judges.

moved the insertion of words in the clause to the effect that any Judge of the Supreme Court at present in office should be allowed to resign at any time with the same retiring pension that he would be entitled to if he had served ten years at the time of the passing of this Bill. The Bill, he said, proposed to impose upon the Judges much more onerous and aborious duties than they had hitherto been called upon to perform, and they ought, therefore, to have the option of continuing in office, or retiring under the circumstances suggested by his Amendment.

opposed the Amendment. No Judges earned their retiring pensions so easily as the Judges of India. No less than £22,000 a year was at present paid in the shape of retiring pensions to such Judges. The effect of the Amendment, if agreed to, would be to enable any existing Judge, no matter how short his term of service, to retire with a full pension.

considered the right hon. Gentleman's reply unsatisfactory, and, therefore, said he should divide the Committee upon the point.

ruled that the Amendment could not be put, inasmuch as its operation would be to impose a charge on revenue which must, in the first instance, be sanctioned by a Committee of the Whole House.

moved the insertion of the words "their good behaviour respectively," in lieu of the words, "Her Majesty's pleasure," his object being to make the practice in India correspond with that in this country, where Judges were independent of the Crown, so long as they continued properly to discharge the duties of their office.

opposed the Amendment. It was not desirable to make any more change in the existing system than was absolutely necessary; and the clause as it stood simply went to maintain a system which had hitherto been found to work satisfactorily in India.

moved the insertion of words at the end of the clause for the purpose of saving the prerogative of the Crown in regard to fixing the precedence of the Judges.

saw no objection to these words.

saw great objection to them, and thought them most unconstitutional. There was a see-saw system going on in respect of this Bill between the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, who was backing him, and the Secretary of State for India.

asked whether the Civil Servants called upon to act in these Courts would receive the same retiring pension as the legal members? At present these Civil Servants were entitled on their retirement to superannuations of £1,000 a year, one-half of which had been contributed by themselves in the shape of deductions from their pay; whereas the legal members of these Courts would receive pensions of £1,200 to £1,600.

believed the Civil Members of the Courts would be entitled to their Civil Service superannuation.

said, that great injustice would be done to these Civil Servants if they were not put on an equal footing with the legal members of these Courts.

said, this important point ought not to be discussed at that late hour (one o'clock). It was most unfair to reduce the pension of these highly qualified Civil Servants below that of mere barristers of five years' standing.

said, that the Civil Servants had not hitherto been entitled to anything else than their superannuation allowance; but it would be in the power of the Secretary of State in Council to consider their claim to something further.

thought the Bill would give the Government great power over these Judges, and suggested that words should be introduced into the clause on the Report, limiting the authority of the Secretary of State in Council to make regulations with respect to their emoluments and pensions, so that whatever was done in the matter might apply to the Judges generally, and not to individual cases only.

promised to adopt the suggestion.

moved that the Chairman report Progress.

inquired whether, as this Bill seriously affected the bar of India, it had been when drawn submitted to the present Lord Chancellor, who was then first law officer of the Crown?

said it was not.

hoped the Committee would consent to vote £250,000 on account of payments to the contractors for the conveyance of mails by sea. These payments were payable quarterly, and at the end of this month the different Companies under contract would send in their claims. The only available source from which they could be paid was a Vote taken in the course of the year, and this was the last night on which the Vote could be granted, if granted at all.