of the various Presidencies into his Council--he might select all his Council from one Presidency if he chose. As to publicity, while it was left in reference to the proceedings of the Councils of Madras and Bombay, it was taken away with regard to the great Legislative Council of Calcutta. It was scarcely to be expected that the Indian public would acquiesce in that. You might just as well shut the doors of the House of Commons and tell the people here to be satisfied with having the debate of the Common Council to read. It was idle to attempt to limit the subjects to be discussed by the local Councils. While there were men in them of equal ability to those who sat in the Calcutta Council, they would break through all rules, and would discuss any questions of public interest they chose to take up. He agreed with the noble Earl who had brought in this Bill, that representation in these Councils was impossible, but on the selection of natives the recommendation of a petition recently presented to the other House might be deserving of consideration, that the natives selected should be nominated by some delegation of natives. He would have wished some words introduced into the Bill, making it imperative to appoint a certain number of natives upon the Council. He feared on the whole, that this measure would rather increase than remove the difficulties in the way of any future Governor-General.

The Earl of Derby thought that great weight ought to be attached to the observations of

Lord Ellenborough, who could speak with authority and from experience. He did not, however, apprehend much danger of the Governor-General being outvoted in the Council, but thought the great evil was the Council assuming the position of a little mock parliament, wholly unsuited to the circumstances of India. He also wished to ask what would be the distinction as to publicity between the Council in its legislative and executive capacities, which was a point of great importance.

Lord Granville said that in its executive capacity, the discussions of the Council were not intended to be public. The Bill was then read a second time, and shortly afterwards passed into a law.

The Court of Judicature (India) Bill encountered but little opposition in either House. In the House of Commons the second reading passed with very little observation. The Earl of Ellenborough, however, made some strong observations in disapproval of the Bill when it came before the Lords. The noble Earl objected to the proposed amalgamation of the Sudder Court and the Supreme Court, as he believed the judges of the latter would prove too strong for the judges of the Sudder, and would have everything their own way. But his dislike to the measure was principally grounded upon the indefinite power of appointing barristers to the judgeships of those high courts proposed by the Bill to be given to Government. He did not believe there were five, much less twenty-five, men at the whole bar who could

be safely pointed out as possessing the judicial mind requisite for these offices. He characterized the measure as nothing but an enormous job for the barristers."

Lord Kingsdown approved of the Bill, but did not think sufficient provision was made for appeals. It might be taken for granted that one-half the deeds brought forward by natives were forgeries, and nearly all the statements contained in them perjuries. Under this state of things the work of trying appeals must be very heavy, and he thought it would be well if a tribunal were expressly constituted for appeals.

Lord Ellenborough then moved certain amendments of which he had given notice, the principal one of which was to reserve to the Governor-General the power of appointing some of the judges, and to try the proposed changes experimentally at first, only in the High Courts of Fort William, Madras, and Bombay, before introducing them into the small courts in the provinces.

Lord De Grey and Ripon felt bound to oppose the amendments of Lord Ellenborough, as it would be most unwise to have legal functionaries sitting on the same bench and holding their commissions from different authorities. It was not intended to fill up all the judgeships appointed by the Bill.

The Lord Chancellor said, it was hoped that the amalgamation of the two Courts would have the effect, by rendering justice more efficient, of diminishing the number of appeals to this country. He could not concur with the amendments of Lord

Ellenborough, for it was one of the first prerogatives of the Crown, as the source of justice, to appoint the judges. If there were to be two sets of judges appointed, those appointed by the Crown would be looked upon as a superior class-a circumstance which would tend to promote the same jealous feelings which had formerly existed between the Queen's and the Company's troops.

The House declined to adopt Lord Ellenborough's amendments, and the Bill was finally agreed to by their Lordships.

The third measure of Indian Constitutional Reform, the Civil Service Bill, was more vigorously opposed. On the second reading being moved, Mr. Vansittart objected that the effect of the Bill would be to do away with the competitive system of examina. tion for the Indian Civil Service, and that it would give rise to a considerable amount of jobbing. He cited the opinion of Lord Macaulay in favour of continuing the service as a close service, confined to covenanted servants. The measure, he said, would be as unpopular among the natives generally as in the Civil Service.

Mr. Liddell admitted that there were strong grounds of objection to the Bill. It was said that it aimed a blow-and without proper safeguards, it might be a deathblow-to the present system of the Civil Service; that it interfered with the rights of that service, and that it placed in the hands of the Secretary of State a vast amount of patronage. He was, however, of opinion that there were considerations which outweighed or obviated these ob

jections, and, on the other hand, he suggested powerful recommendations of this modification of the system, which would strengthen our rule in India.

Mr. Layard said, as the Bill stood, it would be a dangerous measure, and unless certain precautionary words were introduced, and a certain amount of examination were required, he should be disposed to vote against it, as it would open a door to jobbery. He, however, quite agreed with the principle upon which the Bill was founded.

Lord Stanley said he thought the principle of the Bill sound, but that its details would require careful supervision. He entirely approved of the principle of the measure, but the more he considered it the more he was satisfied that there were two securities which ought to be introduced into the Bill itself, and not to be left to the discretion of the Government of India. Of those securities the more important was the limitation of irregular admissions into the Civil Service to men who had resided seven years in the country. With regard to the test of a knowledge of the language, that might not be important so far as the covenanted service was concerned; but he thought that if a proviso were introduced to the effect that the same knowledge of the language should be required of those who were admitted under the provisions of this Act, as was now required from the other services, no practical inconvenience could arise.

Mr. Puller observed that it would not be just to abolish the practical monopoly which the covenanted service had hitherto

enjoyed without its being distinctly known what appointments were to be open, and what closed, and he thought the Bill was not precise enough on this point.

Sir E. Colebrooke and Sir M. Farquhar thought that the Bill ought to be carefully guarded by restrictions to prevent an invasion of the rights and interests of the covenanted Civil Service.

Mr. Adam considered that the Bill contained no safeguard on which the House could rely to prevent the improper exercise of patronage.

There were no

restrictions as to residence, knowledge of language, or examination of uncovenanted servants. The Bill broke faith with the younger civil servants, and also with the public.

Mr. H. D. Seymour supported the Bill. He thought that the Civil Service showed too great a distrust of the Government, who would not object to introduce proper guarantees into the Bill.

Mr. Henley said the Civil Service knew nothing more of the Bill than what they saw within its four corners. He hoped the Government would consent to introduce into it such guarantees as might be thought reasonable for the protection of the covenanted servants, or a fatal blow would be struck at the service.

Mr. Crawford gave his hearty assent to the Bill. He said it was for the interest of the public that the Government should have the power to appoint uncovenanted servants to certain offices.

Sir J. Ferguson and Colonel Sykes made some animadversions upon the Bill.

Sir Charles Wood, in replying to various objections taken by

different speakers, said there was no ground for apprehension on behalf of the civil servants of India. So far from the Bill having the effect of injuring their interests, he believed it would improve their positions. He had no objection to insert a clause containing a limitation of a seven years' residence.

The measure was then read a second time. On the committal of the Bill a long and discursive debate took place, and a great number of objections were urged by various members. Among the most important were those brought forward by Mr. H. Baillie, who said that unless a clause was inserted to confine the uncovenanted service to natives, the Governor-General would, by the exercise of the power given him under this Bill of transferring uncovenanted civilians to the covenanted service, be enabled to seriously injure the prospects of those who had obtained places by competition;-by Mr. Astell, who accused the Government of keeping back from the House the adverse opinions of members of the Council of India, and others, on the measure;-by Sir H. Willoughby, who observed that by the East India Bill all Covenants entered into by the Company became binding on the Crown, and wished to know how the present Bill would effect the two Civil Service funds;-and by Mr. Ayrton, who said that if the House wished to know the opinion of the Council on the measure, the way would be to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, and call the members of the Council as witnesses.

Sir Charles Wood, in reply, stated that the Bill had the warm

support of his predecessor in office, Lord Stanley, and he had fortified himself with opinions favourable to its principle from Lords Auckland, Elphinstone, Canning, Hardinge, and Dalhousie. As to the functions of the Council he thought that question had been thoroughly settled, when the amalgamation of the two armies was discussed. As to the civil servants, they would be entitled to compensation for the deterioration in value of the funds, caused by the influx of a large number from the uncovenanted service.

Mr. Vansittart said there was but one opinion among members of the Civil Service now in London as to the measure, viz. that it would sap and destroy the noble service to which they belonged.

A great many amendments were then proposed, but were rejected by the Committee, and the clauses, as proposed by the Government, were agreed to.

In the House of Lords the Bill was introduced by Lord de Grey, who pointed out that a recent decision of the law officers of the Crown as to the illegality of a particular class of appointments, had made some legislation to confirm these appointments necessary, and to define the powers of the Governor-General for the future.

The Earl of Ellenborough made some remarks unfavourable to the measure, which he feared would not sufficiently protect the interests of the covenanted servants. Lord Lyveden, on the other hand, thought the Bill did not go far enough in opening the service. The Duke of Argyll replied to both these

classes of objections, and, the Bill being agreed to, this, together with the two other important measures for the reform of the administration of India, was added to the Statute Book.

Before concluding this chapter, it will be proper to notice two debates that took place in the House of Lords, on subjects connected with the development of the resources of India. The first originated in the presentation of a petition from the Cotton Supply Association of Manchester and Glasgow, calling attention to the importance of the cultivation of cotton in the East Indies, and the necessity of providing good roads for the transport of that article from the interior to the coast. The Marquis of Tweeddale in presenting this petition, urged the Government to take immediate steps to promote the objects of the petitioners; and he contended that India was capable of producing cotton of superior quality by reason of its soil, its climate, and its ample supply of manual labour.

Lord Harris said he was convinced that, if sufficient capital were at once invested in the cultivation of cotton, ample returns would be derived therefrom, both directly and indirectly. Certain changes in the mode of acquiring ownership of land ought to be made by the Government, and the ports and cotton districts ought to be connected by proper roads.

Lord Brougham entirely concurred with Lord Tweeddale's views respecting the measures which ought to be taken by the Government for this object.

Lord Ellenborough, after dwell-
VOL. CIII.

ing upon the importance to this country of an ample supply of cotton, which was, he said, food to a great portion of its inhabitants, observed that he wished to know what steps had been taken by the Government to meet the present emergency. In the course of an interesting speech he described how his efforts to promote a supply of cotton in India had been thwarted by the Home Government; vindicated the Indian Government from the charges brought against it of indifference to the cultivation of cotton; and remarked that the propagation of that plant depended not so much upon the action of the Government, as upon a constant demand in order to maintain a supply.

Lord De Grey and Ripon said, that, although he perfectly agreed with the previous speakers on the importance of a sufficient supply of cotton, he did not entirely concur with the prayer of the petitioners. So far as the Government could do so consistently with a due regard to the revenues and interests of the people of India, they would offer every facility for the acquisition of land by English capitalists in India; still, he did not think the Government were prepared to allow land to be put up for sale free of land-tax, as it would endanger the revenue, and perhaps inflict injustice on the natives. The Government, he assured the House, were doing all in their power to improve the means of transit, by rivers, canals, and roads, between the cotton districts and the ports. It was doubtful, considering the present state of the money market, and the demands likely to be made [L]