The Press.
London, England, 1853-06-25 00:00:00

THE PRESS.

Vrocubings in V arlianunt.

INDIA BILL

The second reading of this bill being moved on
Thursday, Lord STANLEY proposed an amendment,
which, he remarked, would pledge the house to
nothing, except the opinion that further information
and deliberation were necessary' before Parliament
could deal satisfactorily with the question of Indian
administration. In proof of his assertion that it
VMS inexpedient, unadvisable, and indeed impossible
to legislate for the permanent government of India,
he adduced many reasons—the lateness of the ses-
sion ; the insufficiency of information ; the imma-
turity of public opinion ; and the fact that com-
mittees of both houses were still prosecuting their
inquiries. He adverted to the precedents of former
sessions, citing the dates both when previous changes
in the India charter, and when important measures
of home policy, were introduced ; and showing that
in every instance a much longer period had been
allowed for discussion than the six weeks which
were all that now remained, even if they stretched
the session out to the utmost length. Turning then
to the pleas offered against delay, he remarked
that the principal argument was based upon the pre-
sumed danger of agitation in India. That danger
he could not consider serious. The Indian adminis-
tration had heretofore been in a transition state,
without producing the slightest disturbance. For
insurrection in that country there were few elements
and no leaders ; and the natives were hardly likely
to be stirred into sedition merely by the postpone-
ment of certain administrative regulations, of which
multitude; among them would never hear, when they
had quietly submitted to the death or dethronement
of their own princes. But, whatever the positive
peril, he argued that the comparative danger was less
from delay than from the passing of a bad and in-
complete measure. In both cases the system would
necessarily remain on a provisional basis :
" The house was tokl that if they did not legislate im-
mediately they would weaken the authority of British rule
iu India. But did out the bill itself bear the impress of
provisional legislation ? ( Hear.) The right hon. gentle-
man, at all events. had produced a measure which he said
was to be regarded as an experiment, and which could be
amended if it did not work well. But surely the result of
that was to suspend legislation, and to product a pro-
visional state of things for au almost indefinite period.
( Hear.) As regarded the actual administration of affairs
in India, what would be the result of putting the Company
on its trial fur a little time longer? He believed it would
be situply this—that all persons employed under the exist-
ing tirovernment would work under an increased sense of
responsibility, and with increased activity in the endea-
vour to set their house in order, knowing that this ques-
tion would again shortly come under the consideration of
Parliament. It was generally said in India that more
local reforms and improvements were effected in the two
or three years which preceded the expiration of the
charter than in the whole previous period of its duration.
That he believed to be literally the cage. There seemed
every probability in its favour, and that was one good re-
sult which he should anticipate tioni the suspension fur a
time of permanent legislation."
Lord Stanley proceeded to deny—and corroborated
his denial by the language of Earl Derby—the asser-
tion that the late Government had proposed to le-
gislate for India before receiving the completed re-
ports of the committees. His present amendment,
he remarked, implied, of course, the passing of a
" continuance bill," prolonging for one or two years
the existing system. Admitting that some portions of
the Government scheme were unobjectionable, he pro-
ceeded to criticise the three principal features it con-
tained, and in each of which there were many faults
to be detected. Respecting patronage, he thought a
greater change was desirable. He allowed that the
charges brought against the directors were ex-
aggerated. The men were better than the system.
But the system was essentially wrong which turned
appointments for the public service into a source of
private remuneration. The labours of the directors
were performed in private, and very inadequately
paid ; so that each member of the board received no
equivalent in money or fame, but was practically
paid in patronage. This justified the inference that
patronage was not to be exercised entirely for the
public benefit. Yet this erroneous system was not
broken up by the new bill. Individually, he corn
puted that the directors, in their reduced numbers,
would enjoy very nearly the same amount of pa-
tronage as of old. And even with that portion of the
civil patronage reserved for the Government they did
not deal very judiciously :
•• They had introduced a principle unknown in this
country, but which was said to prevail in China. and there-
fore it might be called the Chinese principle- namely, that
of unlimited intellectual competition for admission to civil
offices. He did not fur a moment deny that the introduc-
tion of such a system was an improvement upon the pre-
sent one. He believed it was infinitely preferable that
those appointments should be rescued pritIOUS who, by
their intellectual meets, were more capable of filling them
with credit than others. He approved of that principle ;
but. though he was far from condemning the experiment,
still he could not help thinking the right hon. gentleman

SATURDAY,

would find sowe practical difficulties in carrying out such
a plan in detail. In the first place, the competition waa
open to all England. He did not know exactly the number
of applications that had generally been made fur civil ay-
puintmeuts; but, if it was anything like the number .4 ap-
plications which all persons received fur situations of infi-
nitely less importance, he apprehended that the number
would be much greater than the right how gentleman
seemed to anticipate. There would also be a practical
difficulty in eubmitting to a proper examination such au
enormous and unwieldy number of persona. He supposed
there was something in the circumstance of making a
man's fortune in life depend on his proficiency at a very
early age ; but he thought the principle proposed with re-
spect to examinations was rather exclusive in refusing ad-
mission to civil otfices to all there who had not distin-
guished themselves at au early period of life. Upon the
whole the propped principle of intellectual competition
cast SO infinitely better than the present system of distri-
buting patronage that he was not willing to find fault with
the details of that part of the measure. But be thought
they were running some risk of flooding India with over-
educated mediocrity."

Upon the second topic—that of the double-govern-
ment system—Lord Stanley postponed any minute
criticism, remarking merely that the scheme proposed
by the Government did not seem calculated to ensure
efficiency. The chief requisite in any body of di-
rectors was perfect independence of the Government
of the day. By the proposed plan six nominees of
the Government, holding seats in the House of
Commons, would be among the members of the
board ; and it was impossible that such persons
should not be under Ministerial influence. A worse
fault in the measure was, that it abstained from alter •
ing the constitution of the Court of Proprietors :

had no hesitation in saying that if they were
anxious to avoid continued agitation, or to introduce any
change or reform, those reforms could only completely
serve the people of India which dealt effectively with the
Court of Proprietors. (Hear, hear.) A great deal was to
be said on behalf of the double government, consisting of
the Board of Directors and of the Board of Control, but he
had never heard a single argument adduced in defence of
the existing Court of Proprietors. That body possessed nu
acquaintance with India, took no particular interest in
Indian affairs, exercised no control over the director. who
were elected by them, and possessed no responsibility to
the people of India. (Hair, hear. The measure now
proposed left this court in precisely the same state as at
present, with the exception of the introduction of some
bylaws, the object of which was to do away with canvassing
fur directors."

Lastly, regarding the internal management of affair:,
the judicial system, public works, and education, the
noble lord remarked upon the misdoings and short-
comings under the present system. With no inva-
sion to dread, there had been many wars—perhap,
necessary, but always costly, and all of which were
begun by the Indian Government. The financial
condition of the country had, he thought. been treated
too lightly, and was anything but satisfactory or ere.
ditable. Public works should be estimated. not by
single performances, but by the proportionate expendi-
ture ; and among the conflicting statements the most
authentic pointed to an outlay of only 300,0001. out
of a revenue of 20,000,0001. Education, by a similar
process, was found to have been starved upon a few
thousands a year scattered among an enormous
population. Lord Stanley then summed up his
argument :

- He had endeavoured to show that it was inexpedient,
if not impossible. to legislate at this moment with &Ivan-
tagt‘ ; that the dangers which were likely to arise from
delay were rather imaginary than real ; that. while upon
the one hand the measure of the right honourable gentle-
man was not a measure of permanent and final reform, it
only disturbed existing arrangements upon the other :
lastly. taking one after another the principal branches of
Indian administration. to express that which -fits un-
doubtedly his firm and conscientious opinion, that what-
ever the Indian tiovemnient might have dons, in whatever
respects it might have been successful—and he did nut
deny that it had been successful in many—in administer-
ing the territories of India, there was yet in its adminis-
tration. as conducted during the last twenty years.
,inil le
room and sufficient cause for the strict and searching in.
vestigations of Parliament, before Parliament either passed
a verdict of approval upon its past conduct. or before it
left in its hands am portion of the power which it still
possessed. (Hear. "hear.)"
The noble lord concluded by moving, as an amend-
ment :

" That. in the opinion of this house. thrther information Is ne-
reasar) to etuible Parliament to legislate with *thantage for the
permanent goverinueut .1 India; and that. a: this late period of
the session, it is in.-xpe livut to proceed with a measure
while It disturbs existing arnangemeuls, eailliOt
a final sou event."

Mr. Lows complained that the amendment rested
on the assumption that the Government bill was permit
nent. It was just the reverse, and proposed a plan
which Parliament were always to have the power of
altering. As for the lateness of the session, earl• or
late were relative terms, turning upon a variety of
considerations and necessities. He quoted instance: of
bills, and even India bills, being introduced at more
advanced periods than the present. Another argu
rnent for delay was the prevailing ignorance of the
English Legislature and public on the subject. That
argument was worthless unless accompanied by the
assunince--which could not bt giveu--thst in two

JIINE 25, 1853.

years hence they would not know any better. Upon
the danger of disturbance from delay he could not
judge decisively, but urged that, if they wished the
Indian Government to be strong, it must not be left
unsettled, and if they thought it wanted improvement
it should be improved forthwith. Mr. Lowe then
proceeded to offer a detailed defence of the Govern-
ment scheme, whose provisions, he contended, were
well-timed and jutlicious.
Mr. Pius condemned the departure from the old
Whig principle that all government should enemata
from the Crown, which the bill prevented. He cha-
racterised it as a half measure, or a hybrid measure,
altogether unworthy of so strong an Administration as
we now enjoyed, and from whom a large, liberal, and
substantial reform was to be expected. Of the two
he preferred retaining the existing system, with its
manifold faults, trusting to time and the wisdom of
Parliament to devise hereafter seine plan of adminis-
tration worth having or rendering prominent.
Sir It. 14. halms objected to the bill, because it
was indefinite in duration and mutable in character.
It destroyed much which it did not replace, and con-
tained too large an infusion of the monarchical
element. To the amendment he objected on account
of the uncertainty iu which it would have been the
subject for two or three years. Of the two he should
vote for the bill and against the amendment, but he
should prefer abiding by the system of 1833, if par-
liament could be persuaded to keep it.
Mr. BAILLIE acknowledged that delay was injurious,
but believed that crude legislation would do still more
harm and foster more discontent in India. The
necessity for great changes was admitted by ministers ;
the house would probably find a necessity for greater.
Under these circumstances the demand for delay was
just and reasonable. Observing that in India the
name of the Queen was ignored, and, while the
" Company" still figured as the the only sovereign,
though virtually abolished in 1833, he insisted that
such insult and humiliation should be abolished, and
the authority of the Crown proclaimed in every town
throughout British India.
Mr. HERRIES apprehended so much evil from delay,
anti found so many things to approve in the Govern-
ment measure, that he elected not to stop its progress,
and so embarrass both the Indian and home Govern-
ments, but take his chance of getting it improved in
committee.
On the motion of Mr. HuME, the debate was then
adjourned.

NUNNERIES INSPECTION HILT..
After the presentation of what Sir it. H. Iseult
computed at " hundreds and thousands of petitions"
for and against Mr. M. Chambers's Bill for the Re-
covery of Personal Liberty, the second reading of
that measure was moved on Wednesday by that right
hon. baronet. He remarked that the clamour raised
against the bill was founded on a mistake, and the
petitions asking for its rejection were filled with mis-
descriptions. There was not a line in it which
alluded specifically to the Church of Rome, or a
phrase that could wound the feelings of the members
of any community. It did but provide a remedy for
an evil which, it was admitted by everybody, might
possibly exist, and for which, therefore, Parliament
were bound to provide a cure.
Mr. PHINN objected to the bill for the very reason
alleged by Sir R. Inglis in its favour, namely, be-
cause it was general in its application. Being intended
to apply to a particular body, it was dishonest to give
it a general denomination. He denounced it, also,
as destroying that great first principle of liberty
which declared every Englishman's house to be his
castle. He proceeded to argue that the habeas
Corpus Act was abundantly sufficient for all the pur-
poses contemplated in the present bill, and scouted
the insinuation that Roman Catholics were so sub-
missive to the priests as to allow their relations to be
incarcerated against their wills. Quoting some of
the circumstances that had transpired relative to

Taunton Agapemone and the Plymouth establish-
ment, Mr. l'hinn threw out a surmise that the bill
before them was designed to draw away public atten-
tion from certain transactions within the Church of
England itself. Extracting from a speech of the
Bishop of Rochester a witty defence of the convent
system, and a sneer against those who liked every
measure which the Roman Catholics disliked, and
merely because they disliked it, the hon. member
moved that, instead of reading the bill a second time,
it should be referred to a select committee to consider
whether any, and what, regulations were necessary
for the better protection of the inmate 4 of conventual

Cl4llllllll/111.111C111.4.
Mr. IN/UIC Burr, who seconded the amendment,
professed his detestation of the surreptitious cha-
racter of the bill. It was unmanly and cowardly, he
said, to profess one thing and legislate for another.
If they wished to regulate nunneries, do it openly,
instead of establishing an odious Protestant inqu►si-
tion for the sake of repressing Roman Catholic
convents. The hon. member proceeded to dissect
the provisions and foreshadow the operation of the
bill, which, he declared, in the end would prove both
an outrage and a mockery.