It was perhaps impossible at the time the transfer took place to foresee many of the defects of the new system of government which was then introduced. As, however, more than twenty years have now elapsed since the commencement of this new system of administration, the time has, I think, arrived when great good would be likely to result if the Act of 1858, by which the transfer of the Government of India from the Company to the Crown was effected, and the amending Acts which have been subsequently passed, were subjected to a careful parliamentary inquiry. Among the many reasons that may be urged in favour of such an inquiry, it may be mentioned that the experience of the past has shown that it is in the highest degree desirable that Indian affairs should be periodically investigated. In the days of the Company such an investigation was insured a*t regular intervals, because the Charter of the Company, from which it derived its authority, was only granted for twenty years, and each renewal of the Charter was invariably preceded by a parliamentary inquiry. The three Committees which were thus appointed before the Charter was renewed in 1813, in 1833, and in 1853, collected information, the importance of which can hardly be overestimated.

This was so fully recognised at the time when the Committees were appointed that many of the most eminent members of the House served upon them. The Committee which preceded the renewal of the Charter in 1813 first sat in 1808, and continued its sittings until 1812. During this time it made five reports. Among those who served on this Committee may be mentioned Lord Castlereagh, Mr. Tierney, Mr. Wilberforce, Mr. Dundas, Mr. Charles Grant, the Duke of Wellington (then Sir Arthur Wellesley), and Sir Robert Peel. The next Committee was appointed in January, 1832, and consisted of no less than forty-eight members, among whom were Mr. Baring, Sir James Mackintosh, Mr. Labouchere, Lord Cavendish, Mr. Villiers, Mr. O'Connell, Mr. Hume, Mr. Warburton, Viscount Morpeth, Mr. Sheil, Mr. E. Lytton Bulwer, Mr. Charles Grant, and Mr. Robert Grant. The Committee which preceded the last renewal of the Charter was appointed in November, 1852, and concluded its inquiry at the end of the session of 1853. The Committee consisted of thirty members; the late Mr. Thomas Baring was its chairman; and among those who served on the Committee were Mr. Disraeli, Lord John Russell, Mr. Gladstone, Sir James Graham, Sir W. Molesworth, Mr. Cobden, Mr. Hume, Mr. Macaulay, Lord Stanley, and Lord Palmerston. If the questions which these various Committees had to investigate were at the time considered to be so important as to make it desirable to enlist the services of the most eminent members of the House, I think it can without difficulty be shown that there are now many subjects connected with the government of India which not less urgently demand a most careful and thorough parliamentary inquiry.

Although there may be much difference of opinion as to what principles should regulate the government of India, there can, I believe, be no difference of opinion that those principles, when once determined, ought to be embodied in precise and intelligible legislation. As already stated, the government of India is at the present time mainly controlled by the Act which was passed in 1858, and this Act is so obscurely worded that in attempting to interpret some of its most important provisions, the highest authorities have arrived at diametrically opposite conclusions. This will be at once seen by reference to a remarkable debate which took place in the House of Lords in 1869. In that year the Duke of Argyll, who was then Secretary of State for India, introduced a Bill which effected an important change in the tenure by which the members of the Council of the Secretary of State had hitherto held their offices. By the Act of 1858 the members of Council were to hold their offices on the same permanent tenure as an English judge. It was apparently thought that as to them was to be entrusted the duty of controlling expenditure, it was essential that their position should be made as independent as possible.

Soon after the Duke of Argyll became Secretary of State it was evident that he held a different view from that which had been held by some of his predecessors, as to the functions which ought to be exercised by the Council. Considering that they were rather a consultative than a controlling body, he, with the object of securing the advice of those who had recently returned from India with fresh experience, effected a fundamental change in the tenure of the office. By the Bill to which reference has already been made the independent position of a member of Council was to a great extent weakened. He was no longer to be the holder of a permanent office, but was, in the first instance, to be appointed only for ten years, and at the end of this period he might be re-appointed by the Secretary of State for five years. As the character of the office was thus greatly changed, it almost necessarily happened that in the discussions which took place on the Bill the powers which could be exercised by the Council had to be considered.

Directly, however, an attempt was made to define these powers it appeared that the highest authorities entertained entirely opposite opinions.

Thus, the Duke of Argyll, in order to bring out with distinctness the absolute divergence in the views as to the functions of the Council held by himself and by Lord Salisbury, who had recently been Secretary of State, quoted the following passage from a speech Lord Salisbury had lately made:-

"In reference to every question in which expenditure is involved - that is to say, as you well know, in reference to every question of every kind, because I believe there is hardly any question in which expenditure is not involved, directly or indirectly-the Indian Council have the power of absolute and conclusive veto by a bare majority over the decision of the Secretary of State."