The Sun. — London, England, 1853-07-01 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIA ME NT. ROUSE OF LORDS--(YESTERDAY.) STATE OF JAMAICA. The Duke of NEWCASTLE laid on the table papers te Ating to the dissagreement between the Governor ~„°' J amaica and the House of Assembly of that island. the Nobl e D u k e h av i ng en t ere d a t some l engt h i nto 4 '" 3 history of the dissensions which had arisen between ''oe Executive Council and the Legislative Assembly, referring to the crisis at which the . difficulty had arrived, in the non-renewal of the import and rum duties, which we re th e sole resource of the island's revenue, stated that her Majesty's Government had determined to recall Sir Charles Grey, the present Governor, and replace him by Mr. Barkley, lately Go vernor of Guiana, at a reduced salary of 5,0001., being 1 ,000/. less than that of the present Governor. 3,5001. of this would, for the next three years, be paid by this country, the remainder being secured by a colonial fund. It was also proposed to assist the island by a loan of 5,000/., a t 3 p er cen t., t o ena bl e t h em to e ff ec t a reduc tion in their public establishments, by giving compensa tion to the present officers, and also to establish a sink ing fund to pay off their debt, which amounts to 70 0,000/., on which the island is at present paying 6 per Cent. The Earl of DERBY agreed with the noble duke it would be premat ure a t p resen t t o enter into a discusion on the state of Jamaica, and the causes of the distress that existed in that island. lie was so far from finding fault with the course that was proposed to be pursued, that, in fact, a similar line of conduct with regard to Jamaica had been determined upon by the late govern xnent--(hear, hear)—he had the pleasure of saying, that the gentleman who had been selected as go vernor—Mr. Barkley—was well fitted for ;the dis charge of the important duties that would devolve upon him, as his experience in the West .India Island especially qualified him for effecting the changes which the state of the island required. He (Earl Derby) would, however, have been better pleased to have seen Mr. Barkley's new efforts marked with a more excep tional character, and that he had gone to Jamaica as commissioner rather than as governor. In fact, he shoidd have gone out with special powers to report on the state of the island, rather than as a permanent governor. By adopting that course, Government might have given him a higher salary than they could possibly give him as governor. He thought that 5,000/. a year, which was to be the reduced salary, was higher than should be given in the reduced state of the finances of the island, and that a greater reduction than from 6,000/. to 5,000/. should have been made. He hoped there would be a guarantee that the income of the island would be able to meet its expenditure, and to pay the interest of the Money to her advanced. Earl GREY could not agree that it would have been desirable to have sent out Mr. Barkly rather as a c ommissioner than as a governor, because it was irn- Portent that that gentleman should have all the power and influence which a governor was supposed to be pos sessed of. He should not have objected to a legal corn- Mission being sent out with the governor, with the view of aiding persons in the colony to so arrange the law as to get rid of the difficulty in which the colony 'as placed, owing to its institutions, which were origi nally made applicable to a system of slavery, whereas the ropulation of the colony was now free. He had great confidence in the resources of Jamaica if they were pro perly developed. Jamaica was blessed with a soil of great fertility, and a climate well calculated to promote . that fertility. All that was required was, that the in stitutions of the colony should be remodelled in the way that he suggested, and if this were done he anticipated that the greatest good would ar i se t o t h e colony. If, howeve r , the subject was neglected, he had the greatest fear that the state of Jamaica would be most perilous. Earl ST. VINCENT addressed the house, but in so low a tone that it was impossible to hear his observations. Lord WHARNCLIFFE said he had heard the sen timents of the noble lord in reference to Jamaica, but he could not concur in his apprehensions in reference to that colony, whether it regarded its social or commer cial character. His observations led him to think that if the finances of the country were properly managed, they would be equal to the expenditure of the colony. The subject then dropped. PUNISHMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. The LORD CHANCELLOR moved the first reading of a bill, the object of which was to substitute for trans portation in certain cases the punishment of imprison ment. The bill was read a first tine, and their lordships adjourned. ROIISE OF COMMONS-(YESTERDAY.) GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL-ADJOURNED DEBATE. On the order of the day for resuming the adjourned debate on the Government of India Bill, Mr. C UMMING BRUCE condemned the exagge rated and embitter e d attacks which had been made on the system to which we owed our Indian empire. Ad vocating a double government, he stated that he had been disappointed by the plan of the Government, which weakened what it should have strengthened, and increased power which was already almost despotic. The proposed system of nominees would subvert the independence of the Court of Directors, and he would rather that the Crown should give to distinguished Indian servants seats in the Council of the Board of Control. He objected that the bill would do away with all permanence, and l eave a ki ngdom to be scrambled for. H e did not concur in Lord Stanley's amendment, the addition to which bound us to legislate in two years --a course which might be inconvenient. Legislation should not, he thought, take place until the opinions, not of the G overnor-General, but of the governors of the presidencies had been obtained. To the proposed system of competition he was opposed, and he instanced eases in which illustrious men had not distinguished themselves during the period of education. Taking various exceptions to the present system of Indian Go vernment, he made several suggestions of his own for improving it. lie urged the necessity of encouraging the spread of the great civilize; Christianity, and ex plained in conclusion that it was not competent to him to p r opose any amendment of his own. „Mr. AIARJORIBANKS would venture to reply oriegY to the charges brought against the Court of Pro preietors, though he was well aware these were neither Pro se Bentertaining nor the instructive points of the debate. •!at hould, however, feel that he was not doing justice Tto_the Court of Proprietors, from whom he had received a tloll favour, if he .did not rise and say a few words let Shire vi maication. The hon. member for Inverness .gt,e,%vished the house to believe that the practice t i ed 'alig3ive votes in exchange for patronage. He de batches T he hon, member also said there were Had this bee: f th S e i xty 'votes lying at certain bankers. easier, for rho Ca se, his canvass would have been much h they only "gh the bankers gave him their best wis es the b lr gave him two votes. He doubted whether all could ""rs in Point outmuster Londo n if they combined their votes 30 0 votes. He would defy any one to or indirect that a single thought been purchased bydirect char ge means. He git was a most unfounded they era gainst 1,600 respectabl e proprietors, to say that Juld be influenced in their votes by eorrupt mo tives ..-- - l iaving now completely vindicated the Court of ezfaZri_et:rs. he would proceed to notice some of the ares zainst the company —with reference to the re :that- had been moved for by the hon. member for riv, ""'°, he be to state that the report in question .. beenivi ‘vauyrnhis,iled months ago ---the report, however, of help regardingataot Yet be en furnished. He could not those as a measure of del a y— an d he agreed w i th sirable. ' Ea c h d 'se who said th at delay was not de :l,llye proved the a b surdity of the charges brought again st Mr. NAPIER , Company advocated th e bi ll rtoPPorted the amendment, as, if he where , : would imply that it was sufficient for its purpose, votin g for the amendment, he did not repudiate the bilebut only urged that a most important subject should Ineag, o e,del considered. H e de el% Paltryr scribed the bill as a paliiative for the evils of India, and he espe Indian code :Ted the proposed commissions—a work which Parliamentaowns by means of plan of revising Ile take. After dilating upon the duty of E no t t ci t) under would consent Christianity in India, he hsaaid country, f this bill spread that could be done for t sitan tiollhons of to it only from stern necessity, v He waarnsetietrh? ho ullest in quiry should be completed. the 'valued its character, and happiness . of th:,,,,'5 8 , as it India, not to pass this bill in its presentcontht n. Mr. JOHN M'GREGOR approached.question as an independent member representing a constituen which took as great an interest in the affairs of India . as any constituency in the kingdom. The error committed by hon. gentlem e n i n thi s d e b a t e wa s in legi s l a t e f or the people of India as if t h ey were t o vere legisla tingfor the United States. There never was a country that Previously t o 17 57 h ad been subjected to such perpetual and bloody wars as India. The British Government had don e h ar d and cruel things in India, but he, for one, c ould not o ver l oo k the good they had done, considering th e Population they had to deal with. The spirit of our government had been mercy itself, compared with that of the Governments that had preceded them. The con dition of the people of India had, indeed, been more F r etohed and miserable before British rule commenced I n tl India than that of any people of whom history made e t ien• Among the difficulties of the question 'was in. efact, that w e h a d had to do with from 3T to 40 toati.ons speaking diff erent languages, and that we h a d al 4troduce Hi ndoo and Mahomedan law into our ad waatration. One-third of the produce of 'the" soil had goveYer been cons i dered as revenue belonging to the prot l F . e_; one-thi r d as b elonging to the zemindar, or culti i .,;u; ; and one-third as b e l ong i ng to the ryot, or the tazalieZ. °1 fth soil. H e b e li eved that the systven of t a , li India required great improvement, esotoially this the Inn salt. (Hear, hear.) He did not consider but, ChaniTt bill that could have been brought in, ins , ges,other hand, to make mat and sweep fessing difr e _ population of 150,000,000 pro peaking 14 a gu ages, havrieng tiher!gions. and speaking 14 different lan and in a countr;ir traditional hatreds and prejudices, divided into cast e' where the Hindoo population were difficulty. (R ear ' Was attended with great danger and against was in le has The error to be guarded and in opposition to. the according to English ideas, Prejudices of the natives,e traditions, usages, and religious had possessed Ever since 1832 Parliament member had the 8° much knowledge of India that no hon. opportunity of a ri cq g u h e t i t i 3. say that he had not had an i illdi a• Ais objectio to n in -6 himself with the affairs of istion was expected tnhis delay was, that in India legis c"aidered that i d. Year, and the Governor-General regarded the roll:1411e late legislation was necessary. He ptiarten o e p f e .in in the bill leaving Indian legisla tan e to,..r P evis on as a wise and general policy on the Vat aye vrovernment. He doubted very much whe ttzlz 0 1 competition for appointments would enc . ' teed so thoroughly as was expected, or give better ser vants to India than the present system had done. The jurisprudence of India he regarded as defective, and he thought Parliament ought to carry out the spirit of the act of 1833 with regard to the employment of the na tives, and that they ought to have all the benefit of the covenanted service. The power of levying war in India was a most dangerous power to give the President of the Board of Control and the Secret Committee, and the wonder to him was, that it had been exercised with so little precipitation and injustice. He did not consider that the natives of India were sufficiently prepared for a decisive change ; when they were so he would be pre pared to go as far as any practical man could go ; and he must confess that he believed the time not to be far dis tant when the government of India must be invested in the Crown. He was willing to admit that the government of India had worked wonderfully well, considering the manner in which it was constituted. The body of men who were to form the Government of India were elected by about 2,000 electors, who took no interest whatever in India, and the company had long ceased to be a trading company and had become territorial lords. On the other hand, they had been connected with the govern ment of India for many years, and, that being so, he considered the course proposed to be pursued by the Government the most safe and practicable. He himself, in thinking or speaking on this subject, was actuated by a spirit of independence, and looked neither to the Go vernment nor to any party, but, considering the matter impartially, he spoke as he felt it to be his duty, as the representative of a large commercial constituency. Mr. DIGBY SEYMOUR always felt considerable diffidence in intruding himself upon the attention of the house upon any question, but he felt it the more in ad dressing them on the present occasion on a question not only affecting the interests of his constituents, but of several millions of his fellow-creatures. He had had the honour of presenting a petition from Sunderland, pray ing that the house would pause before legislating for India, and that it would not pass any measure altering the existing system of government before taking evidence upon the subject from the best sources, including the natives of India themselves. If, indeed, shipping were the child of commerce, and commerce depended upon prosperity, and prosperity was an attendant upon good government, then there was nothing sur prising that his constituents, themselves intimately connected with the shipping interests, should take a deep interest in the issue of this debate. (Hear.) He had himself, after well considering the matter, arrived at the conclusion that the amendment proposed by the noble lord ought to receive the support of the house, and that some time should be given to enable the house to come to a conclusion on this important subject from the elements which might come to their hands. The right hon. gentleman the First Lord of the Admi ralty had stated that the tree ought to be judged by its fruits, and he believed that the fruits of the tree upon examination would not be found agreeable. Looking to the question of peace and war, he would ask the house to consider what had been gained by the wars which had been undertaken in India, and of which four were ag gressive wars, made upon the independence of neigh bouring powers, and for the sake of aggrandisement ? What advantage had been gained by the war against the Affghans, against the Beloochees in Scinde, the Mah rattas in Gwalior, the Sikhs in the Punjaub, and now, for the second time, against the Burmese. The Affghan war was simply an attack upon the independence, and an attempt to overthrow the dynasty, of a friendly neigh bour, and which resulted in the sacrifice of a gallant army. What, again, was the real nature of the war in Scinde ? The excuse made was, that it was for the pur pose of obtaining the command over the navigation of the Indus, and thus to promote commerce with the cen tral part of Asia, but the result was that the Ameers of Scinde were cajoled, conditions imposed upon them which it was impossible to comply with, and, finally, they were deposed and their territories annexed. In the Punjaub, taking advantage of civil dissensions, an army was marched to th e S u tl e j, an d, a ft er f our pit c h e d battles on that, it succeeded in gaining possession of the coun try ; but, from misgovernment, it became once more necessary to march an army of 35,000 men to the banks of the same river. But had the means of support ing the Government been increased by that expe dition ? On the conarary, it added glory to the British arms, but did little service to the commer cial interests of the country. The assumed revenues of the Punjab were about 1,300,0001., and the civil charges amounted to 1,120,0001., thus leaving a surplus of 180,000/. ; that charge did not, however, include military charges, which might probably amount to a burden of 800,0001. per annum. In Sattara the case had been almost similar, and in 1852, in a communica tion from the Court of Directors to Lord Dalhousie, it was stated we were not prepa red to find that the annexa tion of Sattara would entai l a charge on the general re sources of India. The hon. member for Montrose had attempted to vindicate the Court of Directors from the Affghan war, and letters had been published, written by some of the directors, deprecating the war, but Sir John Hobhouse, then President of the Board of Con trol, avowed that he was the author of the system under which that war was commenced. The system had been weighed in the balance, and ought to be condemned by the house. He would now call the attention of the house to a few statistics, which he would read. The public debt of India, bearing interest, as it stood before we commenced our career of conquest and annexation, was, in 1792, 7,129,9341. After commencing that career, it stood as follows :—ln 1814, 26,970,7861. To which last-mentioned sum must be added 5,000,0001. supplied from the commercial treasury of the company in aid of the Indian finances during the currency of the charter, which ended in 1834. The average annual de ficiency in the last five years of the charter—years of peace—which terminated in 1814 was 134,6621. ; in the next five years, principally war , w hi c h en d e d i n 1818-19, 736,853/. ; in the five years of pe ace w hi c h en d e d i n 1823-4, 27 ,5311. ; in the five years ending in 1828-29, three of war, 2,878,031/. ; in th e t en y ears en di ng 1849-50, 1,47 4,1951. The estimated deficiency for 1851-52 was 780,0001. This, then, was the financial condition of India under the present system, which, he maintained, had brought the exchequer of India almost to a state of insolvency. The opium trade had been the means of keeping up the revenue of the country, pre carious as that trade was. With regard to the revenue derived from salt, there had been a reduction of the re ceipts from the Government monopoly in Bengal of 23 lacs ; Madras, 2 lacs ; Bombay, 2 lass. The Customs' duties had also, on the whole, fallen off, comparing th e f our y ears en di ng 1849-50 with 1845-6. In Bombay there had been an in crease of 12,34,153 rupees ; in Agra, of 10,90,532 ; in Madras the falling off had been 18,36,695 rupees, and in Bombay it had been 6,95,586 rupees ; thus making a total falling off of 2,05,596 rupees. These were some more of the fruits by which the tree was to be judged. Those figures, which he believed to be perfectly correct, showed that the Indian exchequer was in a deplorable state. It did not remain for him, at this advanced pe riod of the discussion, t o s h ow how shamefully public works in India had been neglected. The first duty of the Government should have been to subdue the great water power of the country, and to direct it, by means of irri gation, reservoirs, and other artificial means, to purposes beneficial to the population and advantageous to the per manent resources of the empire ; but no works of that kind had been executed. (Hear, from Sir J. Hogg.) The hon. baronet cheered him, but he was informed that Colonel Outram and Major Franks, who were now in London, joined issue with the hon. baronet on that point, as well as Mr. Chapman. The prosperity of Madras mainly depended on irrigation ; yet it would hardly be believed that it was only in 1848 that the Indian Govern ment first began to direct attention to the public works of that presidency. Mark the consequences of this ne glect. In 1803 the revenue of Madras was 206,0001. ; in 1844 it was only 1071. In 1828 the population was 700,000 • while in 1848 it was reduced to 400,000. Mr. Marshall's book showed it to be a statistical law that the consumption of manufactures in a country is in propor tion to its means of internal communication. The con sumption of our manufactures in the British West Indies was 14s. per head of the population ; in Chili it was 9s. 3d. ; in Cuba, 6s. 2d. ; in Peru, ss. 7d. ; in Central America, 10s. ; and in I n di a only 9d. (Hear, hear.) Our importation of Indian cotton had been nearly sta tionary for the last 11 years, while that from America the matter tr i miles sa i s l r e i o s had increased from 1,018,361 bales to 1,784,388 bales. How was this to be accounted for ? Why, while Ame ricao had 11,000 miles of railway open, India had only n i a . y n tso f t o et r rah m es ati on . After all that had been said about 'P i: a: mo t:e t of law and justice in India, it was unnecessary for him t o he t n r ou p b ro le ce t e h d e ed ho t u o se de o n n ou th n a c t e the point. ze tii i T n d h ti e r hon. and l' a ihr tt e to the ca se of nasattivhee p op fruitful ulat souses na n d e, f n cruelty t d re and ct ed ticheterrseit°ri• a treaty sign e d i n the Carnatic stipendiaries. By of money t s , of th e e areat . 1801 the company obtained possession es, on condition of paying The company embers to their S ' f overeign s am y. Carnatic , but the novv revellin the of the reduced revenues money due to stet©' r efused t pay the stipendiaries the reduced to a state -- ', 4 '-il the ° to the home 0 - ,:5 4 ruin. ~ s . ? unfortunate pStsons were woldri say , w ith respect V which the ast Indi a that the only t wo po wers could fixercise, were th e I , 4l „D a llY, accord 4 to tw M.er SOY!, the power of con mzeu - it of ,s Ong measures, had been resolved upon ; measures after they with the admission Made by 14 5 7 . 18 iva1i quite my harim the labour and thought that isA g h t ° Lea, r' after all on Indian affairs lndia mu ' s ef t , e been bestowed governed in India. He could use 1 ;1, ; n evertheless, b e against thit Aouble agency at horn " ° theetter argument Which VOn)d be to keep up a mask and I ' 7 ef4tit Of 'slat From the proper shoulders the load o f re , and to 'which they ought to bear. (Hear, hear.) ~,e onsibil4y the Secret Committee, Lord Hardinge ha d „r e ?. to as "a mystery not understood by the Public, why ef v it Board of C on t ro l s h ou ld g i ve an or d e r t o the s e tt Committee." A n d h e a dd uce d as an instance or this at; officer of hi g h p os iti on an d a bili ty i n I n di a having writ_ ten a letter couched in somewhat indignant terms to the President of the Board of Control, complaining of the conduct of the Seoret Committee, and it was not until named by Lord H ar di nge, that the President was in fact the Secret Committee, that the writer of the letter was made aware of the fact. (Hear, hear.) This was only another illustration of the mask and the sham which was kept up to hide from public view the real source of responsibility. But if the power of commenting on mea sures was a nullity, and if the present bill t d the East stripped East India Company of the whole of the patronage, then, he asked, what was left to the Company but interference without influence and rights without responsibilities 7 (Hear, hear.) In conclusion, he would say that, if we were true to ourselves and the trust that had been re posed in us, and if India were true to herself, self-confi dent, and self-sustained, she would not lag behind in the path of progress that lay before her, but would be seen coming up from, the wilderness leaning on the arm of ' British sympathy and guided by the genius of British reform. (Cheers.) Sir C. WOOD hoped the house would excuse him if he asked them to descend from the elevation to which they had been led by the poetic imagination of the hon. gentle man, and to turn away from that sight in the wilderness of India, " leaning on the arm of British sympathy," to the more practical question whether they were, or whether they were not, to read a second time the bill for the go vernment of India. (Hear.) They were drawing, he hoped, to the close of this discussion, in which, looking to the state of the house, not only that night, but on previ ous evenings, it would appear that a majority of the house took but a small interest. (Hear.) He hoped, therefore, they would be able, before that evening closed, to come to a division on this most important question. He would trespass on the patience of the house for a very short time ; but, holding the position which he had the honour to fill, there were some observations which he felt it incumbent upon him to make in answer to statements that had been brought forward in the course of the debate. (Hear.) It was remarkable that in the course of this discussion very little indeed had been said in favour of the motion of the noble lord the member for Lynn, and still more remarkable were the diversities of opinion and the contradictory argu ments that had been urged in its support. (Hear.) Pro bably it was foreseeing this would be the case that led the noble lord to say the onus of proof lay with the promoters of the bill ; for, if his motion were to depend upon the arguments brought forward in its favour, one set of these arguments might be made to pair off against the other. (Hear.) He denied that the onus of proof lay with the promoters of the bill. It was incumbent on the house to provide for the future government of India, seeing the present system of government would come to an end next year, and the onus of proof, therefore, obviously lay with those who opposed the natural and ordinary course of pro ceeding. (Hear.) The noble lord said that in former times, when the charter expired, a Suspension Act was passed—that previously to the expiry of the charter the Government came forward and provided for the future go vernment of India by a temporary measure—[Lord Stan ley—l did not say so.] He had only to say that he took down the words used by the noble lord at the time, and he added that there was no insurrection in India in conse quence. If he did not make this statement, then he must say that he had grievously misapprehended what fell from the noble lord on that occasion. The argument of the hon. member for Montrose was that there ought to be delay in order that communications should be received from the Board of Directors. He complained that the Court of Directors had only very recently been informed of the nature of this bill, whereas in 1833 a long correspondence took place previous to the bill being introduced. But the question was now very different from what it was in 1833. The act passed in that year involved an interference with the privileges of the East India Company as a commercial body, and with their interests as traders, and a consider able time was required to enable them to wind up the commercial concern. But now there was nothing of that kind. They were merely trustees for the government -of India, and it rested with the house to say in whose hands the government of India should be placed for the future, and what the nature of that government should be. The hon. member for Montrose said, he considered it of im portance to wait for evidence from India, whereas the noble lord, on the contrary, said he attached little or no weight to the evidence that might be derived from India. (Hear.) He had listened with the greatest attention to the speeches which had been delivered in the course of that evening as well as on previous occasions, and had heard a great deal of detail, and many opinions given, as to the various modes in which the government of India should be conducted, both at home and abroad. Among others, the right hon. gentleman, the President of the Board of Con trol, went into considerable detail with regard to the mode in which he would govern India ; but not a single word had been urged as a reason why they should delay proceed ing with this bill. (Hear.) There had been proposed various amendments to clauses of the bill, but little or no argument had been adduced in favour of delaying the bill itself. The only real argument he had heard urged in favour of delay was that brought forward the other evening by the hon. member for Manchester, who gave a reason, which, whether good or bad, was at least intelligible, and he was supported in it by the hon. member for Richmond. The argument amounted to this,—" Give us two years' delay that we may agitate to pull down the East India Company. (Hear, hear.) Now, this might be a reasonable enough argument on the part of those who wished to pull down the East India Company, but the hon. member for Montrose, who wished to keep up the company, neverthe less joined the hon. member for Manchester in asking for delay—the object of the one being to pull down, and of the other to keep up the East India Company, (Hear, hear.) Now, that those who thought the government of India nearly perfect, and wished to perpetuate it, and those who attributed to that government every abuse that occurred in India, should both unite in wishing for delay, teemed to him to be the most contradictory kind of support that could be given to any pro position. (Hear, hear.) It did not seem to him that agitation was the proper mode of settling a question of this importance. To decide what the future govern ment of India should be was a question second to none that could be brought forward, and it was one that re quired the calm and deliberate consideration of that house. (Hear, hear.) He trusted, therefore, the house would not be led away from the fair and full consideration of this question on the ground of an appeal to public opinion. (Hear.) Such was not the proper mode of obtaining the calm and deliberate judgment of that house, and he hoped they would not jeopordize those important interests that were at stake by refusing to deal with the question as it now came before them. (Hear, hear.) The Richmond on which the hon. members for anchester and Richmond desired delay was, that the subject might be submitted to public opinion, and they seemed to consider that that public opinion, agitated by such speeches as had been de livered on this question, would be the best mode of settling the whole controversy. He did not think, however, that that would be the wisest mode of determining a question of such importance as the future government of India; and he believed a majority of that house would see the propriety of not giving in to such a proposal merely in order that the system of governing India might be pulled down by agitation. (Hear, hear.) Reference had been made to an expression which he quoted from Mr. Mill, that enlightened public opinion was the best security for good government. To that opinion he subscribed, but he believed that unenlightened public opinion was the worst authority to which they could appeal ; and he must say that if public opinion was to be enlightened by such state ments as were made in that house on this subject, it would be very greatly misled indeed. (Hear, hear.) He must say that the misstatements that had been made, embracing, as they did, every prejudice that could be excited against those who administered the government of India, exceeded anything that he ever remembered to have been made in that house. (Hear.) The hon. member for Manchester told them, the other night, that a report on public works, which had been received in this country, had not been laid on the table of the house, and then he imputed to the East India Company the most unworthy motives for withhold ing such a report from the house. Now, he thought the hon. gentleman might have had the charity to suppose that the company were not actuated by any improper motives ; and, if he had referred to the votes of the house, he would have found that the report in question was laid on the table in August last, and that his complaint was entirely without foundation. (Hear, hear.) Then the hon. gentleman (Mr. Blackett), on a former oc casion, stated that a report on territorial aggrandisement (as we understood) had not been laid on the table of the house. [Mr. Blackett here gave an explanation of his statement.] The hon. gentleman was bound to ascertain from the best possible authority what the fact was, and if he had referred to the votes he would have found that on the 14th of May that report was laid on the table of the house. (Hear, hear.) Then, in taking his information from the appendix to the committee's report, his hon. friend had made what he must call as ludicrous a mistake as it was possible to make. In giving an account of the out standing arrears of rent for 20 years the amount of arrears was stated at the end of each year ; but his hon. friend had added the outstanding balance at the end of each con secutive year, and then came down to the house and said the sum of the whole was the amount due from the land revenue of India that had failed to be collected. (A laugh.) They had heard a great deal about the salt duty, and more than one gentleman had referred to the diminished con sumption of salt as a proof of the miserable condition of the people of India. An hon. gentleman quoted from an Indian newspaper a statement to the effect that there had been a great falling off in the consumption of salt, but he did not take the trouble to refer to the next number of the same newspaper, which stated that an unwitting mis take had been made to the extent of 40,000 tons. (Hear, hear.) But the great mistake committed was taking the revenue as a criterion of the falling off of the consumption, totally forgetting in the comparison which had been made of one period with another, the fact that in the meantime the duty had, been reduced. In Madras, where there was no reduction of duty, the revenue had increased ; in Bom bay it had also increased; but in Bengal there had been a reduction of 6 per cent. in the duty, and the amount of revenue showed a diminution. (Hear.) The hon. member for Sunderland spoke of the miserable condition of India and of the consequent impossibility .of the people taking g so en in tle n m y an of f o o li rg r o g t oe t d h s at as t o li tr o r w co a u s e n tn con es si d d id er . ab ß le ut d t o h m e e h s o t n ic . manufacture in India, and that if we sent wanufactured goods there we displaced, to a great &dent, the domestic man-ufaetitte of that country. To suppose, therefore, that our itaiiiithdttirds should go there and increase, es in Bra - zil and elsewhere, was to sheet § total disregard of that which must necessarily be the state of the exchanges. Notwithstauding this however, within the last 10 Of 20 years bur exports to India had increased far more in Pro portion than the total exports of this eetintry. To India they had increased about 112, per cent., while the total exports had increased itt tioiiirig like proportion. Then tile lion. gentleman referred to a quarrel between a couple of zemindars which was fought out with spirit, and a policeman who was looking on never interfered to prevent it: _This the hew gentlpeden quoted as a proof of the won derful deterioration Which* liad Wien place under our rule in India. Well, he was sorry that that should have taken place, but he had heard in this country of the inefficiency of parish constables and of faction fights in Ireland which had not been interrupted, yet he had never heard such things alleged as reasons for altering the whole of our con stitution, and abolishing the system of King, Lords, and c o mmons, m i t . to be true, even to a greater z d was it or was it extent than the 'hon. gentleman I:l l . l . e j e • 1..4 not an improvement on that state of were exposed to ii troop of Sikh horsemen dashing -Tuzs when they b ` --- • ever the Tnintry and hinclering everyvillage? Ile =tat felt justified saying that ketternal, war thte.! 3 might have boen, internal war and dissengidti if entirely given way under the dominion of British rule in fritter which e h s i c c rl h e h el eo oraut3 (Hear.) B, The hon, gentleman had read some account of the m iserable state of the trots in Bengal from, he believed, tur n to t!: &Vett). 131tt if the Itottld vi „ d pages of the Quarterlp Review, or to Plcvile ' 24 (1 a very stron iißprc§siOrt he would find os s ,th e miseries of this cpuntry—of deserted the abolite "'Kt fin the rest of it—owing to free trade and more thanll°Aof th e corn laws, quite as harrowing as any speeches of the If he went no further even than the misery in this country ago, he would find accounts of had read of t all, too, that wise s h iz e a li t l erjo a r nd learned member for Suffolk, not of the ryots in Bengal. (Hear.) hon. member for man : e i s te tei ss a nd st a h . at T w h h a i t ch h:e h n e r. 17 existed and or the system which the member always confined his ins aI gn tio their not esta blishing a system of landowners Inlnd n ia similar to that which existed unkir the Perpant nt s ystem of Bengal. Yet it was under thr,t permawnt alystom'so created, that the misery exist ie d of wiudli Jae' 'led read an account, and which was tcl be attrilmat 0, not to the exB4.- THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, JULY l, 1858. tions,of the Government, but to the exactions and extor tions of those landowners of whom the hon. gentleman so highly approved. The hon. member for Manchester referred to some evidence which he said had been taken before the committee, though it had not been re ported, depicting the miserable state of the inhabitants of Bengal. At all events, there had been one witness who, in the strongest language and with the utmost fervour, had contrasted the condition of the, people in the British do minions in India with that of those who were still under native rule. The hon. member for Sunderland went at some length into the state of the revenue of India, and described it as all but bankrupt. He (Sir C. Wood) should not have thought it necessary to take much notice of that, except that statements of the kind, if allowed to pass un contradicted in that house, might alarm the people of India, or those who depended for their incomes upon the interest of the Indian debt. He would state, therefore, how little foundation there was for the apprehensions in which the hon. gentleman had indulged, and which had been sanctioned also by the hon. member for the West Riding. It was perfectly true, that since the last charter India had been engaged in a very considerable and expen sive war, and no doubt a great addition had been made to the debt in that period ; but the whole Indian debt at t a o n and n that, Europe, certainly, was n o looking very this moment was less than t wo y ear ' s revenue o f India, formidablewhatweamwoerut e n a . ccu Th sto e m i e n d . crease in the debt, since 1833, was about 500,0001. per annum, while the increased land revenue from the same territory was upwards of 2,000,0001. per annum. The additional charge, therefore, was one-fifth of the additional income, independently of the income of the new territories, which amounted to about 1,500,0001. more. The hon. gentleman had corrected him when, on a previous evening, he stated the Indian revenue at 26,000,000/. He (Sir C. Wood) knew at the time, however, that he was rather understating than overstating it. On looking at the returns of the last three years he found that the revenue in 1850-51 was 27,000,0001 ; in 1851-52, 28,000,000/. ; and in 1852-53, 29,000,000/. In 1849-50 there was a surplus of 354,000/. ; in 1850-51 a surplus of 415,0001.; in 1851-52 a deficiency of 469,0001.; and in 1852-53, paying the probable expenses of the Burmese war, a surplus of 544,0001. With an income, then, increasing at the rate of 1,000,0001. per annum in the last three years, with in three years out of four a surplus, and with the whole debt less than two years' income, he could not say that such a state of the finances ought to inspire them with very great alarm of total and immediate bankruptcy. (Hear, bear.) There was another remarkable statementas to our acquisitions in Scinde. An able officer had the command there. He had taken up his quarters at a small mud port, with very few inhabitants. The exertions of that officer, in laying out roads, and promoting irrigation, had been such that that place was now a flourishing town with 10,000 inhabitants. That was the manner in which the country had been im proved under our rule, and so much for the accuracy of the statements which were made, to prove the inefficiency of the present system of government, which, nevertheless, the hon. gentleman who had attacked it, wished to preserve by supporting the motion of the noble lord for delay. He confessed that he thought every argument which had been used tended in favour of the second reading of the bill, and against delay. They had not the least impugned the authority of the Earl of Dalhousie's opinion, which had not been given in answer to any leading question from him (Sir C. Wood), and which he thought therefore, was entitled to the greater weight, but they had referred to the opinion of the editor of the Friend of India. Now he would read one short extract from the letter which that gentleman had addressed to Mr. Bright on the subject of delay. That gentleman knew what had taken place in that house, what the arguments both for and against delay were, and this was his deliberate opinion : " I will venture to assert, after witnessing the mode in which the Indian campaign has opened in Parliament, that nothing could be more disastrous for India than to prolong this' agitation' for two years, during which the ' intelligent natives' would be led, however erroneously, to imagine that their representations would be welcome to their friends in England in exact proportion to their virulence and unscrupul ness. Two years of such unhealthy agitation, by raising hopes which must be disappointed, and fostering a spirit of disaffection to the British Government, might even tend to shake the principle of loyal obedience in the native com munity." (Hear, hear.) He trusted that those who were not pre. pared to trifle with this great question, but who had regard to the safety of that empire, would take that opinion of a person who was competent to give an opinion, if any one was, and who was quite independent of the Government, and would not be led away into supporting a motion for delay from which no possible good, but much mischief, was likely to arise. One of the first objections which had been taken to the bill was that it was enacted for no fixed term, and upon that question of the effect of their being no fixed term nothing could be more absurdly contra dictory than the opinions which had been given by the various members who had spoken. The noble lord said, that the measure of the Government was clearly an experimental one; the hon. member for Montrose said that it was merely a provisional one, and the hon. member for Manchester said that it was more permanent than a lease for 20 years. It was difficult to answer arguments on both sides. If they would only tell off one against the other he should show where he stood; but really the mode in which the hon. gentleman who had argaed it contradicted them selves on this question was quite ridiculous. The noble lord thought that one great advantage in a term was, that the attention of the country became at that period concen tred upon India, and they then must legislate, whatever were the circumstances. Was that the best mode of ar riving at a deliberate conclusion upon a matter of thi s na ture,determining that, whatever the circumstances, whe ther there were war or what nob, they must deal with a question of that vital importance ? The hon. member for Montrose said, that they proposed a " provisional govern ment." Why, they proposed to place the Government of India upon the same footing as the Government of this country. Was the Government of this country provisional? The hon. member for Elginshire said that they were putting it upon a footing so fluctuating and insecure that it de pended upon the " Aye" or "No " of that house. Was that putting it upon the footing of this country ? When they placed the Government of India upon the same footing as the Government of this country, as the Government of our colonies, and of everything•else which we possessed,he could not think that they were open to the charge of putting it upon a fluctuating and unstable basis. (Hear.) The hon. member for Montrose had certainly used an extraordi nary argument for him, for he had advocated the exploded doctrine of finality, and had stated as his objection to the measure that itwas one which might be altered and amended as time and circumstances mightrequire. Such an argument to come from so ardent a reformer as his hon. friend he confessed he had never yet heard. He had heard many declamations against finality, but such a bold assertion in favour of it he had never heard in that house or elsewhere. What said the noble lord? He said that this measure was ` O So obviously experimental that it was left open to altera tion from year to year. It would have been better to come forward with a well-considered plan, and to say, ` Here is a constitution for India; be it good, be it bad—let it have a fair trial.' " That was exactly what the Government did. Here was a measure which they considered to be the best that they could give. In their opinion it was the most wise and prudent that they could adopt. They believed it to be good; and if good, they believed it would be permanent • but if expe rience should prove it to be bad, and if it should not an swer their expectations, it might be altered as time and circumstances might require. Were they to be told, then, that it was an objection to any measure for the government of any country that those who proposed it believed it to be the best they could propose, but that if time and circum stances showed amendments to be necessary, they would not be deterred from amending it by any doctrine of finality such as was proposed by the hon. member for Mon trose ? Several hon. gentlemen had referred to the opinions of natives of India, but the natives appeared to have come to a much wiser conclusion than the hon. gentlemen who attached such importance to their views ; for since the dis cussion of the present question a second petition had come home from the Native Bombay Association, and this was the opinion which they expressed with regard to a term of years : " Your petitioners, not foreseeing the chance of arousing the interest and attention now bestowed on Indian affairs, petitioned your hon. house to limit the period of existence of any future Government of India to 10 years; but your peti tioners are now emboldened to ask your hon. house not to debar them for any period of years from requesting a revision of what may be injurious in the coming India legislation. It is simply necessary to pass an act providing for the best form of government both in England and in India, without limiting its duration to any number of years—an act which, like any other statute, might, if deemed requisite, be modified, altered, or repealed, as occasion might require. It cannot be neces sary to embrace all the subjects involved in the discussion of Indian affairs in one act ; and the constitution of the home Government, the constitution and powers of the several local governments, the construction of a new judicial service, and each independent branch of inquiry, if made the subject of separate legislation, would, in all probability, receive more careful attention, and be more satisfactorily disposed of than if the entire mass of Indian information be gathered together in one, and thrown into a single enactment" - , That was exactly the course which they were taking. They proposed a bill for the government of India, not embracing the whole Indian question in one act—one which, if it answered their expectations, would be permanent, and, if not, might be altered as circumstances required. He did not think that he need make any observations upon the subject of patronage. The noble lord said, that he entirely concurred in the principle of admission by competition. The noble lord, indeed, suggested some alteration in the mode of regulating that, and all he (Sir C. Wood) could say was, that there was nothing in the bill which prevented the consideration of those points in committee. The last question upon which the noble lord had given an opinion was as to the form of the home government ; and it must be observed that, not only was the noble lord himself in favour of a double government, but that scarcely any one in the house had advocated a single government. The noble lord said that the double government ought to be re formed, and that the Board of Control should be a consti tuent part of the government of India. His hon. friend the member for the West Riding had quoted Mr. Halli day opinion, but he had not exactly quoted that gentle was exceedingly bad and mischievous. m i' a o s . w zlrds, but had made him say that the double form of governmO t, Wh a t Mr. H a n ay had said was : ~ I have a very hi g h opinion of the mode in which the go vernment of India has heel; conducted in all its branches. . . . . I would recommend nothing like organic change, nor anything beyond careful and even, I may say, experi mental alteration at present, in a matter of such very great importance." To substitute a single for a double government, however, would be an " organic change" of a most radical descrip tion. In the course of the present discussion it had been said to them tauntingly, " You con tend ever y thin g is so good, why do you change anything?" He was not aware that he said everything was good, or that he had not ad mitted that many things . had been ill done, arid many others omitted to be done in India. Still, he had t bought it right to defend the government of India from the indis criminate charges which had been made against it • and ~ q asked, was it not wise to make use of th e Court of Di h• -•-s, a body which did and must exist for the next 20 reek- '4 against whose administration , so far as tleey had yedr4, an. -0 administration, no case of gross mismomage a share in th. -Toyed. Almost every witness who had ment had been k -nmittee, whether connected with the been before the co- not, had pointed out as the great fault of the constitution... Court of Directors or - a long and tedious canvass .. , servants from coming forward - • . „.; 'f the Court, that the necessity of l•ad deterred the best Indian s candidates for a seat at the direction. That was the evidb- ic-e .r't - t v - e - n rt : ,h 3fr y . S S ir h Z herd, one of the ablest directors of tn. '-'`o Lord Ellenborough, by Lord Hardinge, l:q .. Maddock, by Mr. Wi ll oughby, bY my' Itelvill, and w,7, by Mr. Bird, by Mr. Robertson, and by Mr. MIL, ....,,, much authority upon such a question. That b lot t. ' Coil - me_ I ekes, by present b one of whillomenhaadeavogrueractd etxoperii.eemnceed,y by the Govern. ment placing in the court six experienced Indian servants. These, some might say, ough t to be elected by the Court ; of Directors and app roved by the Crown, The Govern ment thought that they ou g ht to be nominated by the . • CrownP but this again was a q uestion which ought to be discussed in committee. There was another very important portion of this question which was the changes that were proposed to be made in the Government—not at home, but in India. He entirely concurred in the statement that India must be governed in India, and that what we did at home was of far less importance than what was done there. The hon. member for the county of Elgin said that ho would confine the changes to the home Government, because with that they were acquainted, while they knew nothing of the Government in India. Mr. C. BRUCE.—I did not say that we knew nothing of the Government of India, but that we should have the opinion of the Governor-General, and of the local gover nors, before altering the system there. Sir C. WOOD continued—He had already stated that he had the opinion of the Earl of Dalhousie, and that the bill had been framed in accordance with that opinion. He had had also the opinion of persons connected with the Government of India, and he did not know that they should gain anything by sending the bill back again. The changes which they proposed were in entire accordance with the whole of the evidence. The bill had now been in the hands of members a considerable time, and he had not heard any material objection made to one single change that was proposed in the government of India. With re gard to a complete code of laws, none had been drawn up in a complete shape. One had been prepared by his right hon. friend the member for Edinburgh, which was now under the consideration of the Legislative Council in India, who were trying whether they could pass it into a law. The hon. gentleman had found great fault with the Govern ment for disregording the opinion of Sir E. Ryan and other great law reformers ; but if the hon. gentleman had entered into the subject with his usual care, or had listened to his (Sir C. Wood's) opening statement, lie would have known that the commission to be appointed in India was at the suggestion of those very gentlemen ; and the most ardent Indian law reformers were to be upon that commission,. and that it was i n d e f ere nce to their (Omen that he had been obliged to postpone the bill for im proving the judicature in India. (Cries of Divide.) The great evil of having one legislative system for one part of India, and a different system for another part of the same country, could only be obviated by constituting one legislative body for the whole of India. He would not go further into these matters, though he must say they were questions of a most important nature. (Hear, hear.) He would only say, that no objection having been raised to the measure which might not fairly and properly be discussed in committee, it did not appear to him that any sound argument had been urged against the second reading of the bill. He thought if they were to deal with the question as the noble lord opposite proposed, they would be merely trifling with a most important subject—with the welfare, and possibly with the security, of the empire in India. That empire was of a most anomalous and extraordinary description. If well governed it might be ono of the strongest empires in existence ; while, if ill-governed, no one could deny that its position might be most critical. Now, what were the measures taken by her Majesty's Ministers for promoting the good government of India ? They had adopted, with regard to Indian government, all the suggestions of the most experienced Indian servants, which they thought calculated to provide for the security of our Indian empire. Lord Ellenborough had told them that they held the empire of India by the superiority of mind and intellect possessed by the persons whom they sent out to govern that empire, and Her Majesty's Govern ment endeavoured, by their proposals with regard to the system of education, to improve still further the mental superiority of the persons employed in the public service in India. They had also been told that their power in India depended in a great measure upon the conviction of the people that they were better governed under the sway of the British than they would be under native rulers. That there were defects in the system of Indian govern ment he was willing to admit. These defects Her Majesty's Ministers had taken the best means in their power to deal with, and he did not know any defect for which this bill did not endeavour to provide a remedy. The questions re lating to land tenures, improvements in public works, and other matters, were subjects which could not be dealt with here, but which must be dealt with in India • and Her Majesty's Government h a d, i n thi s bill, proposed esta blishment of machinery which they thought best calculated to promote in this respect the welfare of that important empire. (Cheers.) Mr. DISRAELI—The right hon. gentleman who has just sat down has complained of the imaginative powers of the hon. member who preceded him, but he has himself shown that even in that respect he can successfully complete with the hon. member for Sunderland—(a laugh), for the right hon. gentleman seems to me in his reply to have answered several speeches which have not been delivered—(hear, and a laugh), and the consequence has been that hon. gentle men on both sides of the house have interrupted him in the course of his statements. It will be my lot, in the observations I shall presume to offer to the house, to have to comment upon some statements which have been pre viously made, but I shall endeavour to make those remarks in so fair a spirit, that I trust at least I shall not call for the interference of any hon. gentleman until i have re sumed my seat. I can assure the house that, in endea vouring to consider the all-important subject before us, I hope to imitate that temperate spirit which characterised the statesmanlike speech in which the amendment now before us was introduced to our notice by the noble lord. (Hear, hear.) I agree with the First Lord of the Admi ralty, in remarking with satisfaction the many intimations that have been given during this debate of a desire on both sides of the house to come to the consideration of this subject in a calm and unimpassioned spirit— (hear, hear) ; but at the same time I must take the liberty of observing that I cannot but feel that hon. gentlemen, in intending to express so laudable a disposition, have, I think, been somewhat inadvertently betrayed into re marks which may lead to very inconvenient, very disagree able, and even very dangerous misconceptions. We have been told frequently during the debate that this is not a party question, as if a party question were necessarily an improper question. (Hear, hear.) We have been told frequently' during the debate that this subject is not considered in a party spirit, as if a subject considered in a party spirit were necessarily considered in a partial and unjust spirit. (Hear, hear.) Now, Sir, as we are all of us members of that which is a house of party, and which, if it were not a house of party, you may depend upon it would not long exist in this country, I think this is a point upon which there should be clearer conceptions than at present appear to prevail in this assembly. I con sider purely party questions are questions which concern the distinctive principles of the two great parties into which a popular assembly is necessarily divided. Aristo cracy or democracy—protection or unrestricted competi- tion—an endowed and established church, or complete dependence on the voluntary system—these are principles perfectly distinct : they are professed by different parties, they are are party principles, and, if brought into discus sion, such discussions are debates upon purely party questions. But it is taking a very limited view of a party question to bound it merely by the description upon which I have ventured. Hitherto it has been supposed that when any great legislative difficulty has been brought under the consideration of Parliament, there has been a noble and generous emulation between the two par ties of the country which should solve the difficulty in the most satisfactory manner, and—when a question of controverted policy arises—which should recommend the course most for the honour of the country and most for the advantage and welfare of the people. (Hear, hear.) Sharing these views, I confess that I cannot under stand how a great party in this house can take refuge in some neutrality upon a subject like that now before us, and shrink from expressing without the slightest equivocation the views which they entertain. (Hear, hear.) If we approve the proposition of her Majesty's Ministers, we are bound, in my mind, to give to that proposition not only our support, but our cordial and complete support. If, on the other hand, we believe that it is a course of a very questionable character,—if, further, we believe that it may lead to disastrous results, I deny that it is in our power to refrain from expressing our opinion. I say that we owe it to our constituents—to those who sent us here—(loud cheers from the Opposition benches)—we owe it to the country, we owe it even to ourselves, fairly to place before Parliament and the country the rea sons why we differ from the course recommended by the Government, and to give Parliament and the country an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon the two policies submitted for their consideration. (Cheers.) I know I may be told that a party government leads to great excesses. It is my opinion that the excesses of party government are not greater—perhaps not so great as the excesses which are experienced under despotic govern. ments ; but, for my own part, I prefer the excesses cf even of party government to the excesses of despotic go vernments—(cheers)—and I believe we shall find in this country that the more enlightened it becomes, the greater and more powerful will be the check of party excess in the ' common sense of this house, and in the influence of that omnipotent opinion, the power of which we all recognize. Well, I say, then, entertaining these views, that I feel it is absolutely necessary that I should frankly express my opinions upon the subject now under consideration. I have made these observations because I have the mis fortune to differ on this question from many gentlemen whom I greatly respect, with whom I act in political con nexion, and for many of whom I entertain great personal regard ; but, for my own part, I cannot incur the respon sibility of giving my approbation to the measure which the right hon. gentleman has submitted to our notice. The consequences of that measure will sooner or later be before us. Even if this government which we are now planning lasts for that space of 20 years which has been so often adverted to, there are many now present who will pro bably be present when that period has terminated. I may probably not be here ; it is not impossible I may be here ; but there are many gentlemen on this side the house—young men, who are devoting their time and talents to the service of their country—who at that period will probably still be taking an active part in public trans actions ; and when that time comes I should be very sorry that they should refer to the debates of the year 1853 (hear, hear)—and regret that they were so wanting in sagacity or moral courage that, because party incon venience might accrue - (cheers from the Opposition)— they shrank from expressing an opinion upon one of the most important subjects that can engage the at tention of Parliament. (Loud cheer s .) T here has been some controversy during this debate as to the exact subject which is under discussion. The Secre trary of the Board of Control accused my noble friend (Lord Stanley) of introducing a second subject into our debate. Now, it appears to me that that was an observa tion—a criticism on the part of the Secretary of the Board of Control, which was not well founded. It seems to me that there can be no mistake whatever as to the question which is before us. It appears to me that the question is accurately, completely, and precisely expressed in the title of the bill on the table of the house. What is the title of that bill ? It is, " A Bill to Provide for the Government of India ;" and an amendment has been moved, which, in fact, says that this plan to provide for the government of India, while it disturbs much, really settles nothing— (cheers from the Opposition benches)—and that, if such be the case, considering that a Parliamentary committee 1 has been sitting for years to investigate the condition of India, but has not at this moment half fulfilled its duties —(cheers and laughter)—it is expedient that we should 11/ ,:ait for the increased information to be gained from the it oiries of that committee, and that, considering the late 9 n - 0 , 1 of the session, we should continue the existing act f r the oovernment of India, and hesitate before we pass a ~... precipitate proposition, the consequences of w] aids, we believe, are not adequate to meet the necessitie is of the case. (Hear, hear.) Now, that is the question be afore us. (Cheers.) A plan for the government of India is - proposed by her Majesty's Ministers. We join issue on t he point. that it is not an adequate and sufficient plan—(c sheers) — and we say that, in consequence of the lateness or the ses sion, and the imperfect state of the parliamentary investi gation we have ourselves authorised, we should pause in our progress. This is a proposition that has been de scribed as something strange and unprecedented-- es some thing dangerous to England and dangerous to Indi c s---(hear, hear)—as a weapon borrowed from the enemy, as . in arrow from the quiver of Indian reformers—(a laug 11)- as a course unheard of, not to be tolerated without authority, and certainly likely to produce conse quences which must be deprecated. Nov, in the first place, is it an unprecedented course ? There 1) as been some talk of the term of two years being allotted to n con tinuance bill of the present act, and some hon. g sntlemen have argued as if it were proposed that two yea] s should elapse before we began to legislate for India. Now, on the contrary, what my noble friend anticipates is, that her Majesty's Ministers, in full possession of the frui `ss of the Parliamentary investigation, should take adva Map of their autumnal recess (a laugh) ; that they should I mature a bill which probably both houses of Parliamen .t would approve (cheers) ; that they should introduce the it bill to our notice the moment Parliament met in Februi ay; and it would probably be passed in a month, and rec *Ave the Royal assent before the existing act expired. I (Cheers.) That is what we propose ; that is what we wish ; and that is considered an unprecedented proposition. (Her r, hear.) Let us see if it is an unprecedented proposition. The go vernment of India has been a question submitte tl to the Parliament of England twice during the present c, sntury— in 1813 and again in 1833. Now, what occurred in 1813 ? It had long been among thoughtful statesmen a si abject of great lamentation and regret that, by a combi nation of peculiar circumstances Parliament had ever be en called upon to legislate for India in a hurried and pi .ecipitate manner. I could quote—if, at this time of night, and having some other remarks to make, I could pre mime to quote—l could quote the opinions of some of th a gravest statesmen and the greatest warriors to that eff eat; but the authority to which I am going to refer is on E , which, at least, will not be questioned by a considerable ► portion of her Majesty's Government. Late in the se ission of 1813—in the month of bill for the gos rernment of India was introduced into the House of Lo rds ' • and what wasthe course taken by no less a personage tlhanLord Grey on that occasion ? (Hear, hear.) Lord Grey came forward and said, " It is impossible to entertain this important question so late in the session. (Choers from the Opposition.) The system of discussing Indian subjects, and the most important of all Indian subjects—tho govern ment of India—at the fag end of the session, ought no longer to be tolerated. (Cheers.) I recommend that a continuance bill of the existing act should be passed, and that Ministers, the Parliament, and the county, should have the intervening space to consider of a measure ade quate to the occasion." (Hear, hear.) But wa s Lord Grey alone in his opinion on that occasion ? I am speak ing, remember, of the first occasion when Parliament was called upon to consider this subject during the present sJ century. I am speaking of the year 1813, when we were in the midst of the European struggle, and when certainly, if a Ministry could be excused for legislating somewhat, precipitately, they might not have found apology , very ne cessary. But we have been referred during this debate to another high authority, both by the right hon. member for Edinburgh (Mr. Macaulay) and the First Lord of the Ad miralty (Sir J. Graham). The name of Lord Grenville has been mentioned by those right hon. gentlemen. Now, with the exception of Mr. Burke, there probably is at this moment no greater Parliamentary authority than my Lord Grenville, whose reputation is one that rises, a circum stance which proves that he was in advance of the age in which he mainly flourished. But great as was, and as is, the reputation of Lord Grenville—though in political economy, and though in diplomacy, he was superior, perhaps, to any man of his time, and far in advance of the majority of the community r —there was no sub ject on which he was so pre-eminently an authority as upon the subject of India. The right honourable member for Edinburgh referred the other night to Lord Grenville's last speech upon that subject as a master piece. What did Lord Grenville say in 1813, when the , Ministers came forward to propose a bill for the government of India ? He said he could not for a moment sanction such a course as that Parliament should be called upon in the month of June hurriedly to discuss a subject so im portant in its nature. He entirely agreed, he said, with Lord Grey ; but he did more. ilia delivered an indignant protest against the policy recommeixied by the Ministry ; and when the Ministry, unwisely obstinate, as Ministers generally are—(laughter)—would not consent to the sage counsel of men like Lord Grey and Lord Grenville, what did they do? Openly and publicly, and in the most solemn manner, they said in the House of Lords that they consi dered the policy of the Government in this respect so fatal, that they would no longer attend the house during the dis cussion, and they consequently absented themselves from the house. I do not say that this is a course of conduct which we ought to follow. I have no doubt that it is a Whig precedent which Ministers would gladly wish in this hot month of June to see us pursue, but this is a harder ago than in 1813; and I suspect Ministers will find a legi timate but prolonged opposition to this measure. Now, what happened in 1833 ? Mind, I mu saying this in an swer to the free criticisms which we have heard of late as to the unprecedented course, the almost factious proceed ings we are adopting. I have shown you the authority we have for the course we are taking. I respect authority as much as any man in this house. I do not wish. however, to lay too much stress upon authority. The argument from authority has a necessary limit. We respect authority ; but certainly in this house—which after all is the temple of free discussion—we cannot prefer authority to the con viction of our own senses, or to the results which reason, knowledge, and information press us to adopt. But what happened in 1833, the very period when the present act. passed ? When that act was introduced into this house by Mr. C. Grant, supported by the right honourable gen tleman the member for Edinburgh, there still remained in the House of Commons, in opposition to the then Go vernment, a most distinguished man, Mr. C. Wynn — (hear)—a real statesmen, a connexion by blood, and deeply united in political career with Lord Grenville—a man of most enlightened mind, of great capacity, of perhaps un rivalled Parliamentary information, and recognised as a first authority on Indian subjects. (Hear.) He had been a member of the Government which preceded the Govern ment of 1833 ; he had been President of the Indian Board; and what did he say in 1833, when in the month of June a bill for the government of India was brought into the House of Commons ? " Observe the unfortunate circum stances in which we always legislate for India. In 1813 a continental war—in 1833 a domestic revolution." (Hear.) Charles Wynn was sensible of the extreme difficulty of proceeding with the discussion of the affairs of India under the circumstances which then existed, and what did he do ? He recommended the Government to introduce a short bill on the points that were necessary for continuing the government of India, and then to proceed to legislate in a maturer spirit, and, after an inteval, on all the great questions which, in resistance to his advice, they had included in the bill of 1833. Well, then, the course which Lord Grey and Lord Grenville recommended in 1813, and which Chas. Wynn recommended in 1833, is the course which my noble friend, consulting with those with whom he chiefly acts, has thought it not unreasonable to recommend to the House of Commons in 1853. Now, sir, I beg the house to remember what happened in 1833. I take it that the house will agree with me, that all our arguments, our illustra tions, and our inferences should be drawn from the law of 1833. In 1813 and 1833, by a gradual process, the East India Company had ceased to be a commercial corporation. The trade to India ceased in 1813, and the trade to China in 1833. The directors in 1833 represented only the pro prietors of a joint-stock company. Their books were closed, their accounts were cleared, and they were intrusted with certain political functions. Beyond 1833, then, I maintain that we have now no necessity for a moment to advert. It may be interesting to appeal to the character of Lord Clive and to the deeds of those heroic men who rose in his school, but they have really nothing more to do with the matter now in discussion than the ignominy and disgrace of the black hole of Calcutta. (Hear, hear.) In 1833 we established a form of government, or, to use the words of the title of the bill, we provided for the governmeent of India. We provided for that government with as much knowledge as was then furnished to Parliament and the' country by the Ministry of the day. There were great admissions then made by those Ministers and by eminent authorities on the state of India. What were those admissions ? It was complained that in 1833 that the government of India had been one which had necessarily led to ruinous wars. (Hear, hear.) That was a great complaint. It was said then that the consequence of this system of warfare was, that the state of your finances prevented you from im proving the condition of the people, and also from improv ing the condition of the country. It was said, also, that, from the want of resources, the education of the native po pulation was not only neglected, but had not even com menced. It was said, fifthly, that the mal-administration of justice was of such a character that it was necessary that a code should be immediately constructed and introduced. (Hear, hear.) I am not now giving any opinion upon these points ; I am merely representing to you the statements which were made by men of the highest authority, in and out of office, at the period of 1833 ; and it was in conse quence of, or rather with these admissions and statements, that the bill of 1833 was introduced to your notice. Now, what is the state of affairs in 1853 ? How is it altered with respect to those five main points ? Observe, I am not now entering into any argument on the subject. I am not stating my own views. I am merely attempting to place before you what I believe to be an impartial narra tive of the statements which we have to encounter. Well, twenty years have passed ; the interval has elapsed for which we had legislatively provided ; and what do we find ? We still have great complaints. What are they ? Constant wars—(hear, hear)—constant deficits—(hear, hear) no education— (hear, hear)—f ew pu bli c works— (hear, hear) — mal - administration of justice. (Hear, hear.) Well, but are not these the five great pleas which were urge d in 1833. Why do we hear of them again in 1853 ? (Cheers.) Are they to be the five points of your charter (Laughter.) I say that when you find in 1833 and 1853 the same great complaints on subjects of vast import ance, it becordes the Parliament to consider the ques tion. (Hear, hear.) Well, but we have still, although it may be imperfect, a great body of evidence before us. We have had our committee, and the House of Lords have had their committee, sitting for two years and taking evidence on various points. Now, what do we find there ? We find this remarkable characteristic in the evidence taken both before the committee of the House of Lords, and the committee of the House of Commons, that those evils are not denied. They are explained; they are apologised for; extenuating pleas are urged in favour of those who exer cise power, but the most experienced servants of the company and the Crown will not come forward and tell you that you have no wars—that you have not continual wars ; they do not tell you that the native population of India is a wealthy and thriving popu lation ; they do not tell you that the condition of the country is changed ; that the means of communication, which were wanting, have been provided ; that the works which, in 1833, it was said should have been accomplished have been accomplished. (Hear.) All those great autho rities— those men who have been employed, and justly em ployed, by the Crown and the company--do not come for ward and say, that the native population are educated ; they do not come forward and. say that the administration of justice is satisfactory. (Hear.) All that they do is to pour in upon us a great flood of information and of light which springs from knowledge, and to give us the means of forming an opinion—l hope not a prejudiced opinion—on the subject, and the result is that there remain in 1853 the same complaints ,on the groat cardinal points as in 1833 ; and that we have had a body of evidence, of autho ritative evidence from head-quarters, laid upon our table, proving that those complaints are well founded. Well, then, is it possible that under these circumstances we can proceed to legislate " to provide for the government of India" as if we were legislating for a railroad ? (Hear.) Are we to be told that this is a question on which discus sion should not be indulged in ? Are Ministers to be allowed to triumph in the fact that Parliament and the people of this country take no interest in this question ? (Hear, hear.) If they really do take no interest in the question the more shame for them. (Hear, hear.) You may rest assured that if th e H ouse o f C ommons d oes t ake no interest in the good government of India, the time is not far distant when they will lose that in which they take, so little interest. (Ch eers .) If I were a m i n i ster and had it impressed on my conviction that the House of Commons took no interest in discussions on India, I would not, night. a fter night, as her Majesty's Ministers do, triumph in the csa s cumstance. I would not take an opportunity of letting D as ,ope and America know that this house took no interest in affairs of India. (L ou d cheers.) This only proves _ w ha,t is only too much proved already—that we are be coming. yearly more and more a meeting of delegates and less amlsitous, and, perhaps, less competent, to enact the part of isanserial legislators, which was once our pride. (Hear, hear.; , I say then that under these circumstances, the House of Coannions, the Parliament of this country,. is bound to discover what is the cause of the misgo vernment of India a misgovernment which tis ac knowledge by the very witnesses who are brought forward to substantiate the claim of the Ministry, that the same authority should be allowed to exercise the power as before, and who conscientiously give ,an opinion to that effect. I do not trouble myself to fix upon one cause as the cause of what is called the misgovernment of India. Ido not mean to say that several causes may not be fixed upon is,as the cha causesthat, p; e ne j o a f i thatly speaking, if a misgovernment; eee n Li b; but e w ni ha i tsgle misgoverned, sad , it is prima facie' proof, at least, that the constitution of that country is au injurious constitution. (Hear, hear.) Misgovernment—chronic saisgovernment—cannot exist, in my opinion, unless the general scheme of adminis tration tseemfetlhieod(nfliegaiewescahisteeivneihetti:allty resent exists, is N ts , has t t ra he ti G ml ov h e a r s n i m n formsome thing in ef it governmentessentially weW h h e a n r Ie all consider heard t a h n l read and thought so much, and of which such contrary defences have been given in this debate, by members of equal and high authority, I find that that government is cumbrous—(hear, hear) ; that it is divided—(hear, hear) ; that it is tardy and deficient in that clear and complete responsibility which is the essential source of all efficient government. Now, these are charges which I don't make rashly ; nor have I used a word of which I don't think the justice can be demonstrated. Let us advert for a moment to the description of the Indian government which has been given in this debate; and observewhat this debate has con sisted of, for although we have been told, night after night, that a house could hardly be collected to listen to the obser vations of members on this subject, I have remarked it as a characteristic of the present debate that no member has taken part in it who has not had either administrative or local experience in India. (Cries of oh.) I should be ex tremely glad to be corrected if lam wrong. It is possible that in the course of four nights' debate I may have fallen into a mistake ; but still I am not conscious that I have done so. (Hear, hear.) I repeat that Ido not know a single gentleman who has addressed the Speaker in this debate who has not had either administrative or local ex perience of India. Perhaps the First Lord of the Admi ralty and myself may seem to be exceptions, but I believe we have both been commissioners. (Hear, hear.) Well, whom have we had ? We have had gentlemen who have served on the Board of Control; we have had gentlemen who have served as military men in India ; we have had East India Directors • we have had gentlemen who have occupied nearly all the highest civil posts in India • and at this moment I do not remember a single individual who has addressed the Speaker who does not come within the category I have described. (Renewed cries of oh.) Well, I am not going to quote any gentleman who has not been in India or had official connection with it. We have had the Government of India variously described. One hon. gentleman—and he certainly comes under my category, for he is en hon. director—got up and said—" It is a great mistake to suppose that the East India Company do not exercise a bond fide and virtual authority in India." That happened on one night of the debate, but what happened on another? A gentleman of equal authority then got up and said—"Of what use is this talking of the East India Company ? It is"—(to use the classic phrase that now taints the rhetoric of the House of Commons)—" it is a sham ; the Government of India is the Board of Control and the President of the Board of Control." What hap pened next? A right hon. gentleman, who ought on this question of all others to be the very highest authority, for he was once Secretary to the Board of Control, and after wards a member of the Council in India, says— " You are wasting your breath and time ; neither the East India Directors nor the Board of Control have anything to do with the matter • the Govern ment of India is the Governor-General." This is a subject of very great interest, and it is curious that you should ' have three high authorities rise in the house and entirely contradict themselves on this subject. (Cheers and laughter.) I mention this to show the difficulty there is in fixing where the Government of India can be found. (Hear, hear.) Now, observe, here is the right hon. member for Edinburgh de claring that neither the East India Directory nor the Presi dent o the Board of Control is the Government of India. Well, a very few years ago, when many members I am now addressing were members of this house, or, if not, the event must be still fresh in their memory—the state of India was most perilous and critical. We had to contend with the greatest military disaster which the English arms have experienced in recent times. At that period England was governed by a strong Ministry, consisting of some of the ablest men that this country ever produced ; and they were under these circumstances summoned to Council to consider what steps should be taken in this moment of unprece dented peril for our Indian empire. Now, fortunately for this country, two of the most eminent statesmen the coun try had ever produced at that time directed the councils of the State. Sir R. Peel and the Duke of Wellington had to consider what, in the greatest crisis of the Indian em pire, was the wisest and mast prudent step, and the step the most absolutely necessary to be taken. They selected a Governor-General for India, and they selected him at the greatest personal sacrifice, for in choosing him they deprived themselves of a colleague of great talents and commanding eloquence, whose talents and eloquence were wanted in the other house, where their cause was not so well supported as in this. They sent him to the scene of Imperial danger, with all the advantages of accumulated and previous know ledge, for he was at the time Minister of India. He went to that country. I shall not enter into a criticism of his career, but this I know, that he gave entire satisfaction to, his colleagues, and that he succeeded in all he undertook ; and this I know also, that in the very heat of his enter prise he was rudely, abruptly re-called. And by whom ? By his Sovereign ? By her Majesty's Ministers? By the President of the Board of Control? Not at all. But by the Court of Directors. (Hear, hear.) We saw this strange and startling thing —that Lord Ellen borough, selected for such office by such men and under such circumstances, was recalled by the Court , of Directors with all the circumstances of shame, and the very next day he was elevated in the peerage and de corated with the Red Riband. (Hear, hear.) Now, I want to ask who is the Governor of India ? Where is that den responsibility which ought to exist, and the want of which I lament ? Have the Court of Directors the same power tinder the present bill ? I have not had the advan tage of the counsel of my learned friends, whom I wished to consult, but I have read the bill, and, as far as I can draw a conclusion, it appears to •me that the Court of Directors could under it recall any Governer -General to morrow. Then to tell me that the Court of Directors that recalls the Governor-General does not govern India, is ab surb, because the directors can in an instant change_ the whole policy, which a Wellington or a Peel approved of. (Hear, hear.) of India is not that simple instru ment of p olity I think I have shown that the Gorehrinchmewnet av have been informed, during the debate, it was. (Hear, hear.) We have Neeu told that the President of the Board of Control was really the Governor of India ; and I have shown von a memorable instance --one of recent experience —in which the Sovereigta and the Sovereign's Ministers adopted a certain course, which was entirely counteracted by the Court of Directors. • (Hear.) I am not making this a charge against the directors. If t h e y have the p ower they have a rigt to exercise it ; but when I am told that the directors have no power, and when I show that they exercise the greatest act of power, and when, so far as I can gather from this bill the same power is reserved to them, then I say these are important points when we come to consider the elements of which this Government is to be formed. Now, remember it is not the question (so conve niently thrust forward in debate) whether you have to de cide on maintaining the present form of Indian government or adopting some great change. You cannot sooner or later avoid this organic change, which we are taught to consider so perilous. (Hear.) You may, if you like, termie nate the power of the Court of Directors to-morrow, but whether you choose to do so or not, at a stated period, which is prepared, the Court of Proprietors ceases to exist, and of course with the constituency the representatives must also vanish from the political scene. Sooner or later, therefore, you must make an ()r -ig: n u i e c t change, whether youndt hwe ill m question ak ry organico u to change,dec de, therefore, adherer efo r e , ning it you may not to the existing system, but whether this is the time to make the change, or whether by postpo eth fo e be placed in a much worse position than you now occupy. (Hear, hear.) I think you may place yourselves in a worse position. If it be true (no matter whose the fault may be) that the condition of India is not a satisfactory condition ; if it be true that the system that prevails leads to a vast. expenditure, which the resources of India cannot main tain, and that consequently the condition of the people and of the country is not only not improving, but deterio rating every day—if it be true that all those objects which you consider of great importance in the government are not in consequence attained—then you must remember, and even her Majesty's Ministers must know this, that there is no reason why in the next twenty years any of those causes which have tended to the degradation of that coun try and its population should be diminished under the bill which her Majesty's Ministers have placed on the table. (Hear, hear.) But what would be your position in 1874 ? You must take into calculation that, whatever the debt of India may be, you must adopt that debt as your own. India, with all its obligations, perplexities, treaties, and encumbrances, will become part of England (hear) ; and, therefore, it is matter of urgent and eminent interest that we should decide at once whether we can afford for the sake of India, and for the sake of England particularly, another twenty years like those just passed. (Hear.) If the house will permit me, I will proceed to touch on the bill upon the table ; and to examine whether it makes those changes in the government of India which may be some remedy in the circumstances to which I have ad verted. Remembering the hour of the night, I will cur tail as much as possible the observations I have to make, and will not touch, therefore, on the changes proposed to be made in the local government of India. With respect to them there aro many clauses to which I have ob jections, but not such as would make me opp ose the second reading of the bill, and virtually, as the right honourable gentleman has said, this amendment is in opposition to the second reading. I will, then, concentrate my criticism upon the plan proposed for the home govern. ment of India, and I find on that head such objections a complete in the plan proposed by the Ministers as alone, all show to the irnesimstyancoepintieon,thfeulliynewasaurirean;t in foe s or i ering house that the plan aggravates all the disadvantages of the existing system , and is deprived, as it appears to me, of many of the advantages which undoubtedly the ex isting system possesses. (Hear.) In the first place I must call the consideration of the house to the new constitution which is made in respect to the Court of Directors. The first objection I make to this scheme, which is of a very peculiar nature, is that by the introduction of Government, nominees that Court becomes immediately dependent. (Hear, hear.) Now, whatever the faults of the existing system may be, the Court of Directors, though the ma chinery may be cumbrous and tending to delay, and even to corruption, has one, if only an isolated virtue—it is inde pendent. I greatly object, then, to the principle of intro ducing Government nominees into the Court, and I will remind the house, as authority has been so often appealed t o , that this is not a new proposition. Mr. Chas. Wynn, in 1833, proposed that there sheuld be a certain number of the Court of Directors nominated by the Government, and serving for four years. That was virtually the iden tical proposition of the Ministers contained in the present bill, so eloquently supported by the right hon. member for _',clitiburgh. But how did that right hon. gentleman meet .n 1833 the proposition of Mr. Charles Wynn? The house should recollect that the right hon. gentleman in 1833 was as great an authority upon India as at present, for he had delivered a speech of surpassing power, and his words