The Press.
London, England, 1853-07-02 00:00:00

198

Mr. DIGBY Szymoua avowed himself a champion
of " young India," and dilated on the bitter fruits
that had resulted from the past system of govern-
ment in that country. Our rule had ended in stag-
nation and pauperism, our wars had made us mas-
ters of a hostile and unforgiving race, our annex-
ations had loaded us with debt, and our extravagance
had undermined all the resources of revenue. These
results he traced to a double system of government,
which he anatomised closely, and denounced as a
delusion and a sham.

Sir C. Woof► observed upon the divergences of
opinion among the opponents of the bill, and the
contrariety of the arguments they had employed.
Throughout the debate little or nothing had been
urged directly in behalf of the amendment itself ;
and as for the reasons alleged against the
measure, they were so contradictory that it'
paired oft' two by two they would mutually
neutralise one another. This operation Sir C. Wood
then endeavoured to accomplish with regard to many
of the arguments used by previous speakers, and
proceeded to detect numerous errors of figures and
details in their successive statements. All that the
Government asked was for a fair trial of their bill.
The onus lay with its opponents of proving that it
was not worth trying.
Mr. DISRAELI, alluding to the hope expressed by
Sir J. Graham that the discussion would continue to
the end free from party spirit, outlined the privileges
and the duties of party leaders, and, submitting that
even a party Government was preferable to a despotic
one, declared that when questions of such extreme
importance were before the Legislature it would be
criminal for any large party in that house t► hold
themselves aloof in sullen neutrality from the debate.
Passing on to the subject before them, he noticed and
resisted the efforts made t► mystify the pleas on
which the amendment had been supported, and t►
disparage the importance of the object it was designed
to accomplish :

" WC join issue on the point that the plan pr►p►sed by
the Liovernment is not an adequate and suffieient plan ;
and on the lateness of the session and the imperfect state
of the inveatigation—the parliamentary investigation which
we have ourselves authoriaed. For thew• reasons we should
pause in our progress. And this is a pmps►sit' that has
been deseribed as something strange and unprecedented
as something dangenms to England and perilous to India,
an arrow fn►ut the quiver of Indian reformers—am a course
unheard of, not to be tolerated without authority, and
certainly fraught with ismsequences that must be depre-
cated. (Hear, hear.)"

Finding in the history of Parliament, that previous
bills for Indian government had been postponed
when introduced at the fag-end of a session, and in
the history of India, that the administrative system
now existing was practically inaugurated twenty
years since, when the trade was thrown open, the
account-basks closed, and the Indian directors
changed from simple merchants into the wielders of
political power, Mr. Disraeli contended that the
machine contrived then, upon imperfect information,
and upon an experimental p►inciple, required more
extensive alterations than were contemplated in the
measure now proposed, and demanded) more delibe-
rate investigation than the subject bad yet under-
gone. The evils complained of in 18:1:1 existed still,
and yet were left unretnedietl:—
" Twenty years have elapsed, and the interval has passed
fur which you have provided legislatively. What do we
tied:' We still have great complaints. What are they"
Vonstant wars—(hear, hear)—% constant detieit—( Hear,
hear)—uo edueati —(hirer, hear )—few public works—
( Hrar)—malaultuinistralitat of justice. (Hear.) lint
these were the live great pleas urged in lsBl. What do
we hear of them again in Im5:1? Are they to is• the five
points of the charter ? (" Hear," and laughter.) 1 say that,
when we Sod in 1533 and in 1145:1 the same complaints
Minh) on subjects of the same vast importance, it becomes
Parliament to eutisider the question well."
That the evidence was imperfect was their plea for
delay. The Government had founded on it an asser-
tion that no grounds for opposition could be substan-
tiated. But at all events the facts testified to chronic
misgovernment, such as could arise from nothing but
essential defects in the system of administration ;
while the scheme suggested presented no reform of
the essentials. All the causes which had reduced
India lower and lower every year for the last twenty
years were lett in operation. There was the same
extravagance, the same absence of responsibility, the
same delusive semblance of a check upon the execu-
tive power of the directors by the Board of Control.
Sooner or later there must he an organic change, by
which the Court of Proprietors and their representa-
tive must cease to exist, and by postponing this
change we might place ourselves in a worse position
than now. Ultimately lathe, with all her Myrna-
brance , must become a part of England, and it must
be considered whether we could afford another twenty
years like those which have elapsed. Alluding to
various topics of detail, and criticising the speeches
of Mr. Macaulay, Mr. Lowe, and Sir .1. Grahtun, Mr.
Disraeli controverted the argument in defence of im-
mediate legislation based on the ground of the dis-
turbances existing in other Oriental countries.
Similar or worse contests, he observed, were raging iu

THE PRESS.

1M33, when the charter was last renewed. Lastly, he
adverted to the condition in which the amendment,
if adopted, would leave the question. The delay it
would interpose had, he said, been largely exaggerated.
There was no reason why a better scheme should not
Le excogitated by minisste►s during the recess ; and,
though ho was aware of the promise to which they
had bound themselves of introducing a comprehen.
sive measure of parliamentary reform, he saw no
reason why some new and wiser India bill should not
take the precedence, and be proposed, discussed, and
passed before the session of 1554 was a month old.
Lord J. ItussEtt. insisted that the amendment was
fallacious in tenor, saying one thing and intending
another. Nominally it imposed only a brief delay in
legislation, really it would throw over the bill until
legislation was altogether impossible. The existence
of our Indian empire itself would be at stake. With
respect to what was called the double government,
he reminded the house that it had been said on all
sides that you could have no other government than
a despotic one in India ; and if so, it would be highly
advisable to have in this country a cheek upon the
proceedings► of the Governor-General.

The house divided, and the numbers were:—
For the amendment
Against it 321
Majority

The bill was then read a second time.
THE BALLOT.

Mr. BONHAM CAR rEtt, or► Tuesday, moved for leav e
to bring in a bill
" to pmvide that whenever a commission to inquire into
the corrupt priwtices at any election for any county, divi-
sion of a county, city, borough, university, or place, in the
United Kingdom, shall I►ave issued, under the provisions
of the act of the Vith and 16th years of her present
Majesty, the votes at the two elect next subsequent
thereupon in any such place shall be taken by ballot."
At the present moment, the provisions of the bill,
said the hon. member, would apply absolutely or
probably to Barnstaple, Tynemouth, Mahlon, Canter-
bury, Cambridge, and Kingston-upon-Hull. Remark-
ing upon the many debates and divisions which had
been taken upon the general principle of the ballot,
he anticipated some gratitude on the part of its advo-
cates, if not of the house generally, for imparting
some new features to the subject, and believed that
his proposition would do much towards settling the
question, by bringing it, on a small scale and under
safe conditions, to the experimentum crucis.
Mr. F. PEEL, regretting the compulsory absence of
his better-qualified and higher-placed colleagues,
opposed the motion on their behalf. The ballot
question had already undergone ample discussion, as
the abstract principle had been thrown out on a divi
sion, and should not now be reintroduced in a circuitous
and exceptional way. If good at all, the ballot ought
to be universally applied ; if bad, why were some
localities to be afflicted with it, fir the sake of giving
a lesson to the rest? He remarked, also, that front
the particular localities which would lie affected by
the present motion no symptom of a wish to be
made the subject of such an experiment had been
perceptible.
Mr. 11. ltr:rtst•:t.rv, the great advocate and annual
mover of the ballot-principle, objected to its intro-
duction in so indirect a mode, and in an homoeopathic
dose.

Mr. Fur. Nett stopped the further progress of the
debate by observing that the Ministers had gone to
the Palace, and the Speaker was expected there, and
by moving the adjournment of the house, which N 114.4
immediately and unanimously voted.