The Earl of Ellenborough reminded Lord Malmesbury, that there had been ample opportunity for discussing almost every question connected with India in that House-Lord Ellenborough himself, as he had been reminded by Lord Granville, having spoken no fewer than sixteen times, and thus having already made his speech on the Bill clause by clause. Lord Malmesbury was "not justified in throwing off from himself all the responsibility which attaches to the passing of this measure."

66

Lord Ellenborough compendiously described the system which the Bill established and partly renewed, as containing something good and something bad. But, at the same time, I think that the greatest part of what is bad is not new, and that what is new is not bad." Generally, it was an improvement on the present system. He made merry at the expense of the self-mutilation imposed on the Court of Directors, and objected to the continuance of the Court of Proprietors as a constituency. What would a farmer do in a similar case? "Would he, if he were in his senses, continue to breed from a stock which always gave a bad breed? Would he, if he were asked to sell instead of breeding, retain in his farmyard the three oldest, most diseased, and incapable beasts of the lot, such as ought to have no place in a farmer's establishment, and which certainly should have no place in a Government concern?" He touched on the power of the directors to recall the Governor-General. "The Bible says, 'No man can serve two masters;' but the Government says the Governor-General of India shall serve two masters, and that, too, without the condition

which is said in the Scriptures to attach to the service of one of them -namely, that of despising him." (Cheers and laughter). He concluded with an impressive warning, lest the change should gradually sap the constitution of India, and act like that Indian poison "which gradually wastes away the body, but never betrays its presence but by the slow decay of every faculty." (Cheers).

After some observations from the Marquis of Salisbury,

Lord Monteagle said, that this was the first instance in his recollection in which both Houses of Parliament had appointed Committees to inquire into a complicated question, and then had been suddenly summoned to rush into legislation before either of those Committees had pronounced an opinion. The present Bill would complicate instead of simplifying the administration of India, and he should feel it his duty, in Committee, to propose several amendments, which he considered essential to the efficiency of the mea

sure.

The Duke of Argyll defended the course pursued by the Government, who, had they studied their own convenience, would have delayed the Bill for another year, but who had felt imperatively called on to legislate immediately for the improvement of India.

After some observations from Lord Ashburton, the Bishop of Oxford, and Lord Wharncliffe, the Bill was read a second time without a division.

The House having gone into Committee upon the Bill, a number of amendments were moved. A proviso, to render valid and give authority to a letter sent to India by the President of the Board of

Control, if signed by the secretary of the Board, was inserted in clause 1, on the motion of the Earl of Ellenborough. This was intended to obviate the inconvenience of delay occasioned by the Court of Directors in not immediately procuring the requisite number of signatures.

Lord Ellenborough then successively proposed amendments in clauses 3 and 4; one to enlarge the time for the appointment of the nominees; a second to enable Government to appoint "six" nominees at once instead of "three;" and a third providing that, in case the Court of Directors neglected to select 15 from among themselves in compliance with the Bill, Government should select 12 from them and nominate six. All these amendments were negatived.

On clause 7, Lord Ellenborough moved that all the retired officers of the Company, civil and military, who had served 20 years in India, should be added to the present constituency. This was supported by Lord Monteagle and the Earl of Harrowby, and occasioned some observations as to the corruptibility of the present constituency. Earl Granville and Lord Elphinstone opposed the amendment, and it was rejected.

On clause 13, Lord Ellenborough complained of the slovenly manner in which the clause and the oath contained in it were drawn, and proposed a new oath, couched in stringent terms. But Earl Granville having promised to reconsider the oath before the third reading, the amendment was withdrawn.

On clause 22, providing for the addition of legislative councillors to the Council of India, Lord Ellenborough desired the insertion of words making it clear that the

councillors were to be appointed from time to time, to be chosen from each Presidency, and to be removable. Lord Broughton protested against the whole clause, as fatal to the Bill, since under it a native might become acting Governor-General. But the clause passed as it stood, with the omission of the word "civil."

Lord Ellenborough proposed two amendments in clauses 25 and 30; the former providing that nothing in the Act should affect the power now vested in the GovernorGeneral by the Act of the 3rd and 4th William IV.; and the latter to make the Commander-in-Chief of the Queen's troops ex officio Member of Council, and the Commanders-in-Chief of the Presidencies ex officio Members of the Presidential Councils. But both were negatived.

Lord Monteagle proposed a clause declaring that no naturalborn subject of the Queen should, by reason of birth, colour, or religion, be incapable of holding employment either in the covenanted or uncovenanted service. Lord Granville did not object to the clause because he doubted the aptitude of the natives, but because it was directed against an imaginary evil. Under the present Bill, any native who exhibits equal talent with an Englishman will be employed. The clause was rejected.

There was a brief debate on Sir J. Pakington's clause, prohibiting to the Company the sale or manufacture of salt, and rendering it free to private enterprise. Lord Ellenborough strongly condemned this novel interference with the financial system of India. He opposed it on principle; it imperilled the revenue, and would, if

carried out, render necessary the employment of an army of excisemen. He also believed it would not produce to the commerce the benefits which were anticipated. India ought to be treated as a perfectly independent country in matters of finance, and he hoped that their Lordships would strike the clause out of the Bill.

The Earl of Albemarle cited statistics to show the deprivation sustained by the natives of India

in regard to salt, and hoped that the Indian authorities would be instructed by the Home Government to alleviate this state of things.

The clause was struck out of the Bill, which then passed through Committee.

In the House of Commons, the Bill, as thus amended, was agreed to without a division, and soon afterwards became law.

VOL. XCV.

[N]