The Press.
London, England, 1858-02-20 00:00:00

THE PRESS, FEBRUARY 20, 1858.

other night cheered as heartily the noble lord whe
contradicting every opinion of the right hon. baronet,
and supported by an eloquent speech from the righ
hon. member for Kidierminster, who on that occa
sion was determined to brook no delay in reestab-
lishing the Goverumont of the Company, and in
making it, as he said, strong, powerful, and re-
spected :

Well, let us see what the right hon. baronet the First
Lord of the Admiralty said in P 453 in discussing one or
two of the points submitted to the consideration of the
house in this debate. I admit that the noble lord at the
head of the Government most delicately anil judiciously
said, wishing to kill the East India Company without
giving them much pain, that he had no charge to bring
against the Company. That was a very judicious observa-
tion, for he knows that his colleague made the same
observation twenty times over in The right hon.
baronet the President of the Boarl of Control, after
touching on some of the great questions affecting
said :

When I read these things I am at a loss to account for the
assertion so recklessly made even by some who, from their
acquaintance with the country, I ,hould have thought had been
in poases‘don of better information on the subject, that we are
disgracefully neglecting our duty in India.

The right hon. baronet then proceeded to make this very
candid admission :

I fully admit that it does not follow, therefore, that because
all these improvements have taken place that the government
of India either ever was or is the belt that can be d.,vised ; but
I say this, that if we are to te,t the Government by the results
of that administration in the condition of India there is no
ground whereupon to condemn it as being negligent and in.
efficient.

To that statement ho pledged the whole character of the
Administration. Now, I trust I shall be pardoned by those
gentlemen who are familiar with this subject if I state,
according to the speech of the right hon. baronet, the
character and tone of which speech I admire, the mode
in which he descrihes the business of the Company to
have been discharged, in reference, always be it observed,
to the question of Ministerial responsibility :

The home business of the governors of India may be divided
into two different parts. One comprises the political relations
of the governors of India with other States, and questions of
peace and war. Those questions are decided, not by the C nut
of Directors, but by the Government of this country, and their
orders are sent through the. Secret Committee of the
In ila-
house. and for these decisions not the Court of Directors but
the Government of this country is entirely and altogether re.
sponsible. Upon that point, therefore, there can be no question
as to divided responsibility, or anything of the kind.
The hon. and learned member for Sheffield has said that
there is a difficulty in finding where the responsibility lies,
but the right hon. baronet declared there could be no ques-
tion on that point. The right hon. baronet then proceeded
as follows :
The Secret Committee merely acts as an organ to convey to
India the directions sent from the Board of Control, and the
President of the Board of Control is in that respect only the
organ of the general Government. A good deal of unnecessary
importance appears to me to have been attached to a declaration
made by Lord Broughton that ho alone was responsible for
giving an order to the Indian Government es to crossing the
Indus by the army for the Affghan war. But that order must
have been signed, not by Lord Broughton alone, but by two
Cabinet Ministers, and he was no more responsible for the order
than the Secretary of State at the time for the order directing
the Duke of Wellington to cross the Pyrenees. 'the act is not
the act of the President of the Board of Control alone. It must
be in pursuance of the theermination of the Government. There
is no mistake, no concealment about the matter, and it is non-
sense to talk of the irresponsible power of the President of the
Board of Control, because the Government of this country is as
responsible fot war in India asitis responsible fur war in Europe,
Africa, or America.
There is the sound doctrine laid down by the then
President of the Board of Control, speaking for the whole
Administration, and therefore it will be surprising to find
any gentleman on the Treasury bench standing up and
taking advantage of the absurd cry of divided responsibility.
The right hon. baronet proceeded:—
What, then, are the functions of the Directors? Every de-
spatch is addressed to them, all questions are considered by
them, and in the first instance they have the initiative on every
question • grants of money cannot originate in any way with
the Board of Control, and in the exercise of patronage. except
in some of the higher appointments, they are entirely uncoil-
'trolled. In the greater p:u•t of their business, 'lowa 'er, they are
liable to the check and supervision of the Board of Control.
He then describes how the despatches are framed, and
adds:—

It is only just to the Directors that T should say, as far as my
experience goes, I have reason to know that the most careful
attention has been given by them to every important despatch.
It is q rite true that the President of the Board of Control has
the power of oveauling in the last resort the Court of Directors.
I therefore fully admit that I am responsible to this house for
any acts in the Administration of India, just as the Secretary of
State for the Colonies is responsible for the acts of the Adtpiuis•
tration connected with his department.
The right hon. baronet first speaks of the responsibility
of the Alinister in matters of peace and war; he then
speaks of his responsibility with reference to the internal
administration of India; and he says that there is not in
substance, though there may be in form, any difference
between himself and an ordinary Secretary of State. The
simple state of the matter is that the President of the
Board of Control is responsible to Parliament for the go-
vernment of India. The right hon. baronet next referred
to the mode in which despatches are dealt with. The
house has heard the serious argument of the noble lord the
First Minister of the Crown on th's subject. The noble lord
stated that despatches were carried about London in cabs
for days together—at least, so I understood him ; and then
he asked the house to conceive the inconvenience of a
system under which ten Directors sit at the east end of
London, and ten at the west end, constant differences of
opinion occurring among these gentlemen. The noble
lord spoke of the Directors as he might, perhaps, be entitled
to speak of the Cabinet in which be sits, but he forgot that

173

the Directors are men of conscience, of business, and of
sense, and it does not appear that they differ and squabble
when they meet, and that they transact no business before
they separate. The noble lord having given that descrip-
tion, and adduced so happy an illustration, he will allow
me to tell him, in the language of one of his moat eminent
colleagues, how despatches are really dealt with by the
Board of Directors, and I sin sure he will take an early
opp munity of withdrawing the statement which he inad-
vertently made to the house, or that he will direct some of
his officials to do so
Before any despatches are sanctioned by the Board cf Control
they must have been carefully sifted and investigated by a body
of independent gentlemen, many of them intimately acquainted
with the people of India, and most zealous and unremitting in
the transaction of business, and so there is greater security for
the good government of India than of our colonial possessions.
Yet we have a leading member of the Cabinet bringing in
a bill to destroy this system which, we are told on such
high authority, secures to India a better government than
is enjoyed by any of our colonial possessions.
Other testimonies, including those of Lord Macaulay
and the late Duke of Wellington, were cited by Mr.
Whiteside against the transfer of the government of
India to the Crown. The hon. member then applied
himself to the argument of Lord Palmerston :
The Crimean war, he said, drew the attention of the Go-
vernment to the complicated arrangements arising from
the distinction between the War-office and the office of the
Secretary of State for War. And so he argued by analogy
that in consequence of the late disturbance in India we
ought to change the iisstem of government for that country.
Now, I appeal to the house to say whether there is any
fair analogy between the two cases. Shades of Pitt and
Fox, was this the best argument the First Minister of the
Crown could give for deciding on a new form of govern-
ment for India? Does a union effected between two de-
partments resembling one another in principle apply to a
change of system in a government? Does such an altera-
tion apply to what Lord Macaulay described as " taking
away the foundations of the Indian Government "? A more
frivolous or superficial argument I never heard, and if that
be the beat which the noble lord can produce the case of
the Government is gone. But the noble lord instituted a
comparison, and 1 avail myself of it. He appealed to the
management of the Crimean w Ir. I simply ask y to
compare the conduct of that war with what has of late been
done in India, and I think a sufficient answer will be sup-
plied to the suggestive argument of the noble lord. A few
gallant men placed in positions of authority in India were,
it is true, surprised, hut not dismayed. They proved them-
selves prompt in action, fertile in resource, heroic in forti-
tude. (Cheers.) By the exercise of those high qualities
they have preserved to you an empire. Yet the return
which the noble lord would make to the laxly which
established the system under the operation of which none
but men of ability, capacity, and energy—such as the men
to whom I have been referring—are raised to important
situations would be to overthrow its power by force of an
analogy drawn between its administration and the manage-
ment under the auspices of her Majesty's Ministers of the
Crimean vier. (Cheers.) Yes, that is the course which
the noble lord asks you to take, as if he thought nobody
was entitled to respect except those who starved an army,
who ignored merit, who sheltered incapacity, who screened
high offenders, and who stifled truth. (Laud and con-
tinued cheers.)
He could understand why the measure was brought
forward at this particular period :
Inquiry into recent events in India must sooner or later
take place. We must find out whether the East India
Company ought to be made the scapegoat in this instance,
or whether, in accordance with the constitutional argument
of Lord Macaulay, the occupants of the Treasury bencto
and among them the First Lord of the Treasury himself,
should not be regarded as the principal offenders. We
must examine into the legislation of the last three or fear
years, so far as India is concerned. We must see whether
it has been in conformity with the customs, the manners,
and the usages of the people of that country, or whether it
was nut in direct antagonlsm to their prejudices and their
feelings. We must ascertain whose was the policy which
left Delhi unprotected, notwithstanding the repeated
representations of Sir C. Napier as to the number of men
which would be necessary to man the guns in that fortress
and to guard its treasures. We ought, I think, to know
why it was that Oude was invadM—( Hear, hear ),—aod to
learn, it' possible, what were those measures which led to
the occurrence of that terrible calamity which so lately fell
upon us. All these are questions which it behoves the
House of Commons carefully to examine. Are the blood,
the life, the bone, and sinews of the country to be reck-
lessly squandered by incompetent men, and yet no redress
demanded? Are we to express our concurrence with the
noble lord at the head of the Government when he says,
I will change the system of Indian administration—l will
throw the blame of those unhappy events, by inference and
implication, upon the Court of Directors. Her Majesty's
Ministers are nut open to censure. In fact, nobody is in
fault. The mutiny is now a matter of history. The sub-
ject is disagreeable. Everything connected with it is in a
state of the utmost obscurity. 1 therefore think it expo-
client to take a jump in the dark." (Cheers and laughter.)
It is for the House of Commons to say whether that line
of argument be in its opinion either just or conclusive,
(Loud cheers.)
Mr. Whiteside then applied himself to the arguments
of the Chancellor of the Exchequer founded on the
condition of India before 1784, and on its happy
transformation when parliamentary authority Iwas
exercised over it, declaring that Sir Cornewall Lewis
had assailed the memory of the illustrious dead, and
contrasting the policy of Clive and Hastings with that
of Lord Dalhousie. So far from the interference of
...Parliament in 1784 having purified the Indian ad-

174

ministration, he asserted that any one who would go
through " Mill's History of India " must come to the
conclusion that the Government under the Board of
Control was corrupt, demoralising, and mischievous,
and he read the high euloginm pronounced by that
historian upon the Company's government. In con-
clusion, he called upon the house to stay its hand,
and, although it might enlarge the basis of the
edifice which had stood so long, not, upon the
arguments urged for that object, to overthrow it.
Mr. Lowe contended that the direct agency of the
Court of Directors could be eliminated without in-
convenience ; that a council could exercise more
influence upon the mind of the President than a
court sitting in Leadenhall-street, and which had
been deprived of political power and all important
duties. The effect of the indirect agency of the
Court of Directors, he showed, was to produce dciay
and embarrassment, and to prsvent the Government
being placed in the proper hands—namely, those of
the Queen's Ministers. Pointing out some anoma-
lies in the present system, lie contended that, looking
at the immense interests at stake, with the convic-
tion forced upon their minds by recent events of the
unfitness of the existing machine, the Government
were bound not to defer this measure at a time when
the Indian administration peculiarly required unity
and efficiency.
Mr. LIDDELL opposed the measure. Mr. SLANEY
supported it.
Mr. CRAW FORD, who had seconded the amendment
of Mr. Baring, said he was aware of the anomalies
of the present system, and was not unprepared to
consider them ; but he had looked for better expla-
nations than he had received of the policy of the
proposed measure. In referring to preceding or-
ganic changes in the constitution of the East India
Company, he had omitted to state that all those
changes had been preceded by a committee of that
house, and, looking at the nature of this bill, he
thought there should have been a previous inquiry.
He objected to the number of the council, to the
exclusion of the members from Parliament, to vesting
the whole power of the present Secret Committee in
the president and council, and to the enormous
patronage which the bill would place at the command
of the Government. Neither the house nor the
country were, in his opinion, sufficiently at present
in possession of the facts of the case.
Sir H. Ilswtissosi approved the principle of the
measure, deprecated delay, but declined to commit
himself to any support of the details of the bill, with
many of which he could not agree.
Sir J. WALSH maintained that the double-govern-
ment system, with all its complications, was better
than a single and autocratic authority. Nothing ,
WAG simpler or more prompt than a despotism, but
he was not prepared to purchase its advantages by
the sacrifice of 'all constitutional cheeks. No charge
has been made out against the Company, and no
cause really shown for their abolition. Proceeding
to criticise the details of the measure, he expressed
bis belief that it was introduced by the Minister
merely to satisfy a momentary impulse of popular
clamour.
Mr. A. Mims and Mr. WILD supported the bill.
Mr. D. SEYMOUR insisted that the present system
deserved the epithet "'cumbrous," and that in the
present state of affairs, after the administration in
India had been improved and simp:ified, it should
not be allowed to continue any longer. The
minds of the natives of India, he said, might be re-
assured upon the subject of. their religion, which
would not be interfered with by the Government, and
as to their employment in offices of trust. The set-
tlement of independent Englishmen in India, to
which the Company were opposed, would be en-
couraged by adopting the suggestion of Sir C. Met-
calfe, who oonsidered colonisation indispensable to
the prolongation of British rule in India.
Mr. ADAMS observed that no charge of mismanage-
ment had been alleged against the East India Com-
pany ; the only accusation against the present system
was the distance between Cannon-row and Leadrn-
hall-street. He thought this difficulty might be got
over by bringing the two offices into the same
building. The delays of the Circumlocution-office
were complained of in other departments besides the
India-house. Whatever need there might be here-
after for a change, the time, he thought, was most
inopportune for such a measure, the effect of which
upon the war in India would be most disastrous.
Mr. ELLIOT opposed the bill.
Colonel SYKES rtoved that the debate be adjourned,
and this motion was carried upon a division by
280 to ;t2.