The third reading of the Judges' Exclusion Bill was
moved by Lord HOTHAM.—Mr. Henry DRUMMOND
moved that it be read a third time that day six months.
This bill (he said) was a reform bill, and a reform bill
brought forward from the other side of the house, with
every evil that every reform bill had hitherto had in it;
framed upon narrow exceptions, and for ephemeral
purposes, without taking any grasp of the past in order to
become a guide for the future. He ascribed much
utility to the presence of men of great judicial capacity
in the House of Commons; referring to the times of Mr.
Pitt and Mr. Fox, when he himself was present at
debates which required the presence of men like the late
Sir William Scott. There seems a desire on both sides
of the house to exclude men of ability: on the
Ministerial side they bring in bills to exclude all property, and
on the Opposition side to exclude all brains. No reform
bill for the future should receive his assent which did
not provide for increasing the number of men of ability
in that house.—Mr. MACAULAY seconded the amendment.
It was hardly creditable, he said, to the house
that such a bill should have reached that stage without
a division. No one had ever asserted that any inconvenience
had ever arisen from the presence of the Master
of the Rolls in the house, to a seat in which he had been
eligible for six hundred years. He demanded why the
Master of the Rolls was to be excluded from the House
of Commons while admitted to the House of Lords; and
he remarked upon the great influence which judges have
always exercised in the latter assembly, adverting
particularly to the position of Lord Brougham on the one
side, and Lord Lyndhurst on the other, at the great
crises when the Reform Bill was rejected. He
contended that the proposed measure tended to transferring
men in the prime and vigour of life from the Commons
to the Lords; and the result would be that Europe
would be looking to the conflicts in the latter assembly
while the Commons would be attending to turnpike-
road and canal bills. The public was learning to look
lor extensive law reform, and this was the time chosen
for excluding from the House of Commons the last great
functionary left to it by the bungling legislation of
former parliaments. The bill was thrown out by 224
against 123.

On Thursday, June 4th, the house went into committee
on the Income Tax Bill. On the 13th clause,
making the duty on rateable tenements in Ireland
payable in the first instance by the landlord or immediate
lessor, Mr. Isaac BUTT moved an amendment to limit
the immediate liability of the landlord to cases where
the annual value was under £15, and beyond that value
the occupier be liable in the first instance.—The amendment
was negatived on a division.—Mr. CAIRNS moved
to add to the same clause a proviso that any landlord or
immediate lessor in Ireland, charged under schedule A,
may elect to be assessed upon his actual receipt, and the
duty shall be thereupon computed on a sum not less
than the amount actually received by him within the
preceding year, without the deductions heretofore
allowed under schedule D, but deducting poor-rate.—
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER objected to this
amendment, that it aimed at a system altogether
exceptional, and tended to bring back the old abuses of self-
assessment.—Upon a division this amendment was also
negatived.—The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER,
proposed several new clauses. The effect of the first was to
provide that where a landlord or immediate possessor of
lands in Ireland, assessed to the duty under schedule A,
had paid the same, and it should be proved to the
commissioners for special purposes that the rent due for the
period during which he was duly assessed had been
wholly lost by the bankruptcy, insolvency, or absconding
of the tenant or occupier, or that the land had been
left waste or unoccupied, the landlord should be entitled
to claim a repayment of the duty. A second entitled a
party appealing, as well as the commissioners, to require
a new valuation. A third extended the relief granted
to tenant-farmers who were occupiers under the act of
1851, in respect to abatement of tax, where the profits
proved less than half the rent. A fourth placed clergymen
and ministers on the same footing as other
professions with respect to charges incurred wholly and
necessarily in the exercise or discharge of their
professional duties. A fifth enlarged the powers of the
commissioners with reference to bad debts.—These
clauses were agreed to, and the bill was ordered to be
reported.

The house then went again into committee on the
Customs' Acts. The deferred items underwent much
discussion (many being again postponed) and the
resolutions were ordered to be reported.

The Hackney Carriages Bill, having received various
amendments, passed.

On Friday, June 3rd, Sir C. WOOD brought in his
Bill for the Government of India, in a speech of five
hours in length. At the outset, he disposed of the
appeal for delay, by representing that delay is unnecessary
as regards information, and, in the opinion of Lord
Dalhousie and Lord Hardinge, politically hazardous in
India. He dwelt on the petition of the Native Association
of Madras, to show that its statements are
exaggerated misrepresentations. He then reviewed
in succession the great constituent elements of British
administration in India,—internal government, judicial
administration, public works, revenue, &c.; giving a
rather favourable account of our rule, and arriving at
the conclusion that we have not " disgracefully neglected
our possessions in India." Against the proposal of Mr.
Bright and others for the establishment of what is called
the "single government," he cited the opinions of Mr.
John Stuart Mill, Mr. Halliday, Sir Charles Trevelyan,
Lord Hardinge, and Mr. Marshman. Towards the
close of his speech he described the provisions of the
measure which ministers mean to propose. It is
proposed to leave the relations of the Board of Control and
the Board of Directors as they stand; but to change the
constitution, and limit the patronage of the Court of
Directors. The thirty members of the court are to be
reduced to eighteen—twelve elected in the usual way,
and six nominated by the Crown from persons who have
been Indian servants for ten years. That will obviate
the objection that the best of the Indian servants do not
always obtain a seat at the Court of Directors. One-
third of this number will go out every second year, but
be again eligible. This change to take place gradually;
in the first instance, the thirty directors to elect fifteen,
and the Crown nominate three. The directors to
receive salaries of £500 a year, and the chairman and
deputy chairman £1000 a year. The proposed form of
government to continue until parliament shall otherwise
provide. With respect to patronage, now entirely in
the hands of the court of directors, it is proposed to do
away with nomination by favour altogether, and to
make civil and scientific appointments depend on merit
alone. On this point Sir Charles Wood said emphatically
that Haileybury and Addiscombe "shall be thrown
open to unlimited competition. If the aristocracy are
able to introduce themselves to Indian service, I shall
be exceedingly glad; if the son of a horse-dealer can
introduce himself in that way, I shall also be exceedingly
glad. Merit and merit alone shall be the test." But
what are called direct appointments to the army are not
fit subjects for competition; the directors will continue
to appoint, subject to the approbation of the Crown.
No change will be made in the general control which
the governor-general exercises over the Indian government;
but as he has more duties than he can fairly
discharge as governor of Bengal, a lieutenant-governor
of Bengal will be appointed. It is proposed to continue
the lieutenant-governor of Agra, and to appoint a new
presidency on the Indus. A temporary commission will
be appointed in England to digest and put into shape
the draughts and reports of the Indian Law Commission
appointed in 1833. As legislation on that digest must
take place in India, it is proposed to improve and enlarge
the Legislative Council; giving the governor-general
power to select two, the heads of the Presidencies one
each, and making the Chief Justice of the Queen's
Court and one other judge members, in all twelve: the
governor-general to have a veto on their legislation.
The education at Haileybury will be improved both in
the course and in the examinations; great addition
being made to the legal education; and the final examinations
to be made by independent examiners. An
improvement is to be made in the superior courts. At
present there is the Queen's Court for the English, and