On this page
-
Text (1)
-
Untitled Article
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
-
-
Transcript
-
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.
Untitled Article
^ Sir Chaeles Wood argued in reply , that nomination by the Crown is better than election by the rest of the Directors . The men appointed will be men of distinguished services and high feelings , and they will be always independent of the Ministry of the day ; while , in case of election b y the Directors , they might be partisans put in to swamp a useful and independent minority . Mr . Heebies condemned the mixing up in one body ( as proposed in the Government scheme ) of persons elected by the proprietors and persons nominated by the Crown . Even if we destroy the existing system , we should , while we keep the Courts
give it all honour and prestige , and Mr . Vernon Smith ' s amendment having that tendency should be supported . Mr . Lowe urged that the scheme of nomination by the Crown avoided the objectionable " canvass , " and would secure " independence" in the Directors— -for their independence is not actual but lies in their arguments , their experience , their reason , and their authority , tinder the new system it will be still more difficult for the Board of Control to exercise power in defiance of a Court of Directors so eminent and respected . The twofold sources of appointment will cause an emulation between the Crown and the Court in appointing
creditable persons . When finally the Crown is to absorb the Government of India ( in 1874 , when the Proprietors shall no longer exist ) the agency of the Crown must be " nominees ; " it is , therefore , desirable to introduce that element now on a small scale . It has been said that as " nominees" are objectionable in colonies they are likewise objectionable in India—but the cases are not similar . The essence of Colonial Government is responsibility to persons residing in the colony , while the essence of Indian Government , and that which mitigates our despotism there , is responsibility to the people of England .
"In a colony the governor is looked uponmerely as the image of her Majesty , as a subject discharging a limited duty . In India the endeavour has always been to hold up the Governor-General as combining the greatest power and ahnost all the attributes of sovereignty , and to keep as much , as possible in the background the machinery by ¦ which he is coerced and controlled . In a colony a brilliant future is looked to , when a nation may arise equal to our Own . In India the most sanguine person cannot look to such a change until after the lapse of centuries of education . In a colony the nominee is the symbol of irresDonsible eovernment . In India he is regarded as the
symbol of progress , as the means of giving a higher tone to the intellect of the people of India , and increasing that influence which intellect must always command . Moreover , nominees are introduced into a colonial legislative council for the purpose of voting away the money of the people without being their representatives , and for making laws ; whereas in this instance , in a colonial sense , those elected by the Court of Proprietors and nominated by the Crown are both noinineea not taking their offspring from the will of the people whom they govern . There ia
another distinction . A nominee in a colony is a legislator and has the power of holding the purserstrings ; whereas in India it is not the function of an East India director to act and decide so much as to Buggest , to initiate , to advise , and to reason . In the ono case there is the necessity for combined action . In the East India directorship , so far from combined action being desirable , it would bo the duty of tho Government , if they should all be found of ono way of thinking , to introduce some heterogeneous clement , for the purpose of getting up candid discussions , in order to elicit truth by tho conflict of intellect with intellect . "
Mr . Elliot objected to tho clause as tending to the Parliamentary interference with India , than which there could bo no greater misfortune . There are not ten men in tho House who really know anything about India . Lord Stanley pointed out that the Crown nominees would without doubt be dependent on tho Ministry , and being allowed seats in Parliament , would utill more be inclined to act with tho Government of the day . This might bo obviated by depriving them of their seats in Parliament , or electing them for a longer torm—say ten or twelve years . But the amendment is equally objectionable ; ib institutes a system of
Bolf-election , and depends on tho continuance of the Court of Proprietors , whom it ia desirablo to remove . Mr . Hume emphatically objected to the nominee system , ns injurious to the independence of the directors . Sir James Weir Hog a approved of tho amendment as better than tho Government plan , but be urged tho House to increase if not tho salaries at least tho rank and influence of tho Directors . Mr . CumminG Bruce condemned the Government scheme as introducing a political element into tho Direction ,
and though he would have preferred open election , ho approved of tho amendment . Mr . Phillimore , on tho contrary , spoke strongly against any election by tho Directora . Recent facts had shown that tho place * in tho Board of Directora ore given to those who , like the lioroca in the Vunowd , can " divo tho Hwiftest through tho mud" Mr . MabJORIHANKS , as an East India Director / denied thin assertion . Mr . Thomas Baking obiccted to tho lino of demarcation that would exist Swoon elected and nominated Directors and also to allowing puch Crown nominees to Bit in Parliament .
The Government should adopt some plan like that proposed in the amendment . Sir James Graham explained -that , by taking this power of nomination , the Government sought not to increase their own power . Their actual power is complete , for the Board of Control is only subject to the moral influence of the Court of Directors . It is to ' add to that moral influence that the Government propose the nomination of six Directors , and the provision that the nomination is during good behaviour , is but an usual and necessary provision against . possible inability
or misbehaviour . Canvassing has been most generally objected to as degrading , and sometimes corrupt ; this proposition evades the canvass , and strikes at the root of the corruption by taking away the patronage . Also , as Mr . Lowe has said , the time will come ( in 1874 ) when probably we shall be forced to adopt a single government for India—and this proposition prepared the way for that change . Regarding the required term of service in India , and the duration in office after election ^ amendments may be afterwards introduced ; but on the whole , the Government proposition is better than the amendment .
Mr . Bbight said : If a single government will be safe in 1874 , why not now ? Although the Bill is bad , yet the so-called " amendment" proposed by Mr . Smith is still more objectionable . If the Minister appoint the " six Directors , " there will be responsibility to public opinion and to the House , but if the other twelve appoint them , where will there be responsibility ? Mr . Newdegate and Mr . Hildyabd lauded the Court of Directors , as did also Mr . Mangles , who extolled the Proprietors as including Mi \ Macaulay , Lord Campbell , Mr . Hallam , and " every eminent man in the City , " excepting Mr . Thomas Baring . On a division , the amendment was rejected by 193 to 111 ( majority , 82 ) .
Mr . Rich then moved an amendment , that the Directors' terms of service should be— -three , six , and nine , instead of two , four , and six years . Sir Chabi . es Wood opposed it . Mr . Bbight objected to the shorter service , and to the presence of directors in parliament , as injurious to the independence of the directors , and tending to stifle discussion on India in the House . " Recently there has been increased affection between the Directors and the Board of Control . " This taunt
roused Sir James Hogg , who rose to complain of the " offensive" imputation , and to reveal what he had never told before , save to three or four persons , that nine years ago Sir Robert Peel had offered him office in the service of the Crown , with a seat in the Privy Council , and that he had declined the offer through a sense of duty to his colleagues and to India . Mr . Bbight explained that he meant nothing personally offensive . The amendment was negatived without a
division . Mr . Bright objected to the clause enacting that the Directors nominated by the Crown should possess a certain amount of stock . Why should the Crown be thus limited in its choice ? Sir Charles Wood said , it would be " very desirable" that this condition should be retained , as it seemed that the nominees were connected with the interests of the Company . But on Mr . Bright repeating his argument , Lord John Russell said , that there was much weight in it , and it the House thought that the nominated directors , without the stock , would not bo inferior to the others with it , he would conse nt to the omission of that part of the clause . The House said , " No , no ;" ( meaning " Certainly not , " ) and after a congratulation from Mr . Disraeli , the condition was omitted .
The reduction , by their own vote , of the directora from 30 to 15 , was objected to by Sir James Weie > Hogg , as a painful task —a declaration by tho body that some of the members are less efficient than others . Mr . Brigiit echoed this statement ; tho duty would be " unpalatablo , unfair , and disgusting . " But Mr . Disraeli objected to tho increased influence which the Crown would have , if the selection were entrusted , to it ; and tho clause was not altered .
Six of the twelve elected Directors must bo persons who have served tho Crown or the Company in India for ton years . This is enacted in the ninth clause of tho new Bill . Mr . Bright moved an amendment that persons who had bcon engaged in mercantile pursuits in India for the same time abould bo equally eligible . Mr . Veknon Smith and Sir James Weir Hogg approved of tho suggestion , and Sir CftABLES Wood , after sonio hesitation , concurred in tho amendment . Ho also promised to consider whether , as regards tho Directors nominated by tho Crown , there- should not ho a Hhnilar extension .
The nominee directors by tho now bill can be romovod by the Crown for inability or misbehaviour , the provision meaning that during good conduct thft directors bo irremovable . Lord Jooemtn , ajt idomtjO
make the Directors more independent , moved that they could not be removed except "by nn address to that effect from either House of Parliament to the Crown . Mr . Htxme , Mr . Philltmore , and Sir IIerbebt Maddock , supported this amendment .. ' ' Sir Chabxes Wood and Lord John opposed it on the grounds that by the proposed clause the directors would be . sufficiently independent ., Holding office for six years they would depend for re-election on a board of control different from that which appointed them , and being full of Indian experience they would be naturally independent of any Minister . The clause was carried by 90 to 43 .
The right of the nominee directors to sit m Parliament was earnestly opposed by Mr . Bbight . With probably 1000 Z . a year , and some important patronage , the directors would easily get elected for small boroughs , and in Parliament they would be dependent on the Ministers of the day . The combination of offices would make them less useful in Leadenhall-street , and less useful as legislators . Sir Chaeles Wood protested against the directors being regarded as " mere placemen at the beck of the Government . " They would be chosen from a limited class , having-qualifications excluding all political influence , and they should not be
excluded form the House , especially if they obtain the confidence of a constituency . There is unnecessary jealousy on this subject . The number of Government offices in the House has decreased of late ; there are now but thirty-four or thirty-five . Mr . Cobden : The proposal of Mr . Bright amounts to this—the Government propose to select six men , whose duty it will be to largely contribute to . the government of India ; we say , "Do not take gentlemen who are in this House , for you will find that the duties will be incompatible . " Lord Stanley , took the same view . Sir James Weib Hogg : If you stigmatise these men as " placemen , " no man of lofty mind will consent to accept office . Instead , we should
elevate the character of the directors ; their duties are most onerous and necessary . Mr . Milner Gibson : If so , what time will they have for the business of the House ? Lord John Russell defended the right of the six directors to sit in the House , on the old Whig principle that there should be no restriction on the choice of the people . It is a mere bugbear to suppose that all the six will sit in the House ; probably two of them may obtain seats . But in any case they are likely to be independent , as they shall be appointed for unpolitical qualifications , and will look to the coming rather than to the existing Ministry for re-appointment . After a few more remarks from other members , the amendment ( excluding the directors ) was rejected by 139 to 79 .
An amendment , to substitute a declaration instead of the " oath" to be taken by directors , was warmly supported by speakers from both sides of the House , but rejected by 138 to 99 . The clause enacting a byelaw against " canvassing" by proprietors was then rejected at Mr . Bright ' s suggestion .
DETAILS OF THE SUCCESSION DUTY BILL . One of the clauses exempted from duty heritable bonds in Scotland , because there they nre regarded as real property , and rated to the relief of the poor . But on Mr . Barrow arguing that tins was no just claim to exemption , Mr . Gladstone saw that a great deal was to be said against the clauso , and so consented to its omission . The schedules of the Legacy Act make a lower estimate of the value of a life interest in property , than the tables on which Mr . Gladstone made his calculations for tho Succession Duty ; Mr . Mullinqs ,
therefore , proposed that , as it was clear that the Succession Duty would , with its present tables , amount to 3 , 000 , 000 ^ ., and not to 2 , 000 , 000 Z . as estimated , the lower tables should be adopted , as a mitigation of the harsh pressure of the tax . Mr . Gladstone adhered to his estimate of 2 , 000 , 000 ^ . from the tax , for in tho inevitable reforms of the probate duties there will bo a loss ; and recent examination of successions in the peerage confirmed the original estimate of 2 , 000 , 000 Z . As to tho higher tables , they are quite right , for the value of lives lias increased . Tho amendment was negatived .
Tho allowance of four years and a half to pay the duty by instalments was objected to by Mr . Williams who pointed out that tho tax on personal property must bo paid in twenty-one days . Mr . Gladstone defended tho nllowanco of timo ; it would bo contrary -to policy and to feeling to force pcoplo to sell part of thoir estates to pay tho tax , as would occur in many cafeos without this allowance of timo . Tho allowance is in fact a deduction of ten or twelve por cent , from tho tax , and as such is quite right . Tho proposed ttnutnd ment vM negatived , ^ l ffP * The flotation of timber was again ( tiuragmd ' -iff . HifW ^ GS r idM an allow ^ o for tim ^^^
Untitled Article
July 16 , 1853 , ] TH E X , E ADER . 675
-
-
Citation
-
Leader (1850-1860), July 16, 1853, page 675, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse2.kdl.kcl.ac.uk/periodicals/l/issues/vm2-ncseproduct1995/page/3/
-