11, Lord Ellenborough strongly objected to appointing Councillors during good behaviour, and moved that their tenure of office should be for five years only. This also was negatived without a division. Some debate took place on the disqualification of members of the Council to sit in Parliament. The Earl of Shaftesbury proposed to make three of the number eligible. The Duke of Newcastle was for admitting all-but the clause passed as it stood in the Bill. Earl Granville moved that no Councillor should carry on any office, trade, or profession. There was a division on this motion, which was carried for the Government by 50 votes against 35. On the clause regulating the admission of persons into the Indian civil service, Lord Derby proposed and carried an amendment transferring the power of making regulations for such admission to the Queen in Council. Another animated debate took place on the clause regulating appointments to the scientific branches of the Indian army. Lord Ellenborough warmly opposed the scheme of giving these appointments by competition, which he described as a homage to democracy, and he spoke with some contempt of the inferior class of persons, the sons of tradesmen and shopkeepers, who would thus gain admission to the service. He said it would affect injuriously the future efficiency of the artillery and engineers of the Indian army. To this argument of his late colleague Lord Derby made a spirited reply. He maintained that the principle of competition was actually in force at Woolwich and Addiscombe. He was not

insensible to the advantages of birth and station, but he could not join with Lord Ellenborough in saying that, because a person happened to be the son of a tailor, a grocer, or a cheesemonger, provided his mental qualifications were equal to those of his competitors, he was to be excluded from honourable competition for an appointment in the public service. By omitting the last three lines the clause would not introduce the system of strict competition. The clause provided that persons should be admitted into the artillery and engineers upon an examination, the regulations for which examination should with all convenient speed be prepared and prescribed by the Secretary of State under the authority of the Crown.

The Duke of Somerset opposed the clause; and after a discussion in which Earl Granville, the Duke of Newcastle, Lord Cranworth, Lord Brougham, and Lord Broughton took part, the Committee divided as follows:

ment, for instance, not to recognize the distinction of caste.

The Earl of Derby said that due protection ought to be given to the professors of all religions in India, and nothing should be done to discourage the efforts of Christian missionaries; on the other hand, he deemed it essential to the interests, the peace, the well-being of England, if not also to the very existence of her power in India, that the Government should carefully abstain from doing anything except to give indiscriminate and impartial protection to all sects and all creeds, and nothing could be more inconvenient or more dangerous on the part of the State than any open or active assistance to any attempt to convert the native population from their own religions, however false or superstitious.

After some remarks from the Bishops of London and Oxford, the Bill was passed.

Although the amendments made by the Lords were not very numerous or considerable, they failed in some instances to gain the acquiescence of the House of Commons. In particular the amendment affecting competitive examinations for the Indian service gave rise to some controversy, the Lords having struck out of the clause certain words directing that candidates should be recommended for appointments in the order of proficiency shown at their examinations.

Lord John Russell, reminding Lord Stanley that he had declared in favour of the principle of competitive examinations, asked him to give an explanation of the views of the Government. The clause, as amended by the Lords,

would enable the Minister of the day to put an end to these examinations or not as he might deem it expedient. As that would be unadvisable, he moved that the Lords' amendment be disagreed to.

Lord Stanley said that Lord John Russell had only done him simple justice in stating that he was favourable to the principle of unrestricted competition. That remark was equally applicable to other members of the Government. If the Lords' amendment in clause 32 would have the effect of destroying the principle of free examination, he would rather resign office than assent to it. But it would have no such effect. No existing right would be impaired by the amended clause. He had originally intended to recognize in an Act of Parliament, instead of in an Order in Council, the right of admission to the public service by competition.

"When that change was proposed we were told that it would be quite opposed to constitutional practice, inasmuch as its effect would be to give to administrative and executive appointments the sanction of a Parliamentary title. There is, as far as I can ascertain, no precedent for adopting such a course. We, therefore, felt ourselves obliged to admit that the objection was a valid one. Then arose the question, how were we to secure the adoption of this competitive principle? The clause under consideration was passed as affording the best means of attaining that object." Now, the continuance of the system would not altogether depend upon the Minister of the day. The regulations for these examinations must be laid down by an Order

in Council. If that order is modified, it must be laid before Parliament; but as the majority of the House is known to be in favour of unrestricted competition, that is a sufficient guarantee that no order will be sanctioned which will modify or repeal that principle. Suppose a minister returned to the old system of nominations. Then the House would discuss the change, and would it be possible for any Minister to carry out his views in opposition to the House? Therefore, the practical guarantee for the maintenance of the principle rests on the known feeling of the House of Commons.

Sir James Graham said he had full confidence in the assurance of Lord Stanley; but he could not agree with him that there was no difference between a statutable recognition and an Order in Council. The change made by the Lords amounted to a reversal of the decision of the Commons; and as Sir James had the highest confidence in the success of the competitive system, he should vote with Lord John Russell.

Mr. Walpole said that the only question was, should the system of competition be tied up in the four corners of an Act of Parliament, and leave no opportunity for any modification that might be desirable? That was a course quite unprecedented. Some discretion must be left to the Crown.

Mr. Wilson said that that argument implied the surrender of the principle of competition. The Solicitor-General repeated the arguments of Lord Stanley. Sir Edward Colebrooke and Mr. Vernon Smith supported the original clause. On a division the House voted to disagree with the Lords' VOL. C.

amendments by 73 to 60. Other amendments made in the Upper House were also negatived.

The last stage of this long parliamentary conflict was the consideration by the House of Lords of the amendments made by the Commons to their amendments. The Earl of Derby on the 29th of July made a full statement of his views upon the several amendments that had been made, declaring his intention not to insist on any of those made in the Lords which the Commons dissented from excepting one-viz., that relating to competitive examinations for the scientific corps of the Indian army. He entered into this question at some length.

66

If you provide, as I think you must do, that with regard to the military service of India, as well as with regard to the military service of this country, all appointments of this description should be vested in the Crown, it is almost a contradiction in terms to say, in the first instance, that all cadetships in the scientific branch shall be vested in Her Majesty, and to follow that up by saying that no persons shall be recommended except in the precise order as they come out of a competitive examination, and that the Crown shall be compelled to exercise its authority according to the result of that competition. . . . It is, I believe, due to the prerogative of the Crown, due to your Lordships' own position, due to the great interests involved, as well as respectful to the other House itself, that it should be invited to consider the marked distinction between the two cases, and that, as the formal mode of attaining that end, your Lordships should be advised to insist on your amend[K]

ment, which strikes out that absolute and imperative condition imposed on the Crown of selecting for cadetships in the scientific branches of the army those per sons who may have most distinguished themselves at the examination, and that, too, in the exact order in which they have so distinguished themselves."

Earl Granville remarked upon the strange conduct of the Government, and the want of understanding between its leading members in the two Houses. This very amendment relating to competitive examinations which Lord Derby called on their Lordships to insist upon, was opposed by the President of the Board of Control in the other House, who declared that in his opinion it was perfectly indefensible.

Lord Campbell was astonished at the passionate affection which the House of Commons had recently shown for competitive examination. They had actually gone wild on that subject. Competitive examination might most usefully be applied to the House of Commons itself. (Laughter.)

Lord Ellenborough made along speech directed against the prin ciple of competitive examination. Finally, the House agreed to the proposals of Lord Derby, and the House of Commons having acquiesced in the retention of the amendments which the Lords insisted on, the India Bill received, on the last day of the Session, the assent of the Crown, and became law.