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

INDIA.

The adjourned debate upon the India Bill was
resumed by Colonel SYKES, who vindicated the
character of the East India Company from the as-
persions of Sir G. Lewis, entered into lengthened
statistical revenue details to show how false were the
conclusions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
and defended the administration of the East India
Company upon every point.
Sir C. Noon adverted to the changes in the system
of Indian administration effected in 1833, which, lie
observed, were precisely in the same direction as
those now proposed. It was left open to Parliament
at that time, without breach of faith, or any incon-
sistency with the Act of 1853, to do that which many
thought was then indispensable,—namely, to govern
India in the name of the Queen. He must, he said,
do the Court of Directors the justice to acknowledge
that when President of the Board of Control he had
found them most able and willing, and nothing
an-
taronistic on their part—" they were as good a
council as a man could have "—but there must be a
better mode of choosing a council for India than by
the proprietors of Eat India Stock. He saw no
reason why the same wise and just policy which had
been hitherto pursued should not be hereafter con-
tinued when India was ruled in the name of the
Queen—a change which he thought justified by the
occurrence of circumstances of sufficient importance.
A larger number of European troops must be main-
tained in India; those troops should be Queen's, and,
in order to put an end to jealousies, the whole army
in India should be the Queen's army. Altogether,
considering that all delays and shortcomings were
attributed to the double Government, it would be
wise to place the government of India at once, and
especially now, in the Crown, and to carry it on in the
name of the Sovereign.
Mr. WlLLotriamav cited returns exhibiting the
enormous extent, population, revenue, and commerce
of India, and entreated the house not to disturb the
foundation of so magnificent an empire, whose ac-
quisition, notwithstanding all that had been said to
the contrary, be considered entirely the work of the
East India Company. He defended the double Go-
vernment, and deprecated changes which would
render India, with its rich patronage, a prize for
competition among political parties in this country.
Mr. CAMPBELL, having spent many years in India,
was assured that the transfer of government from
the Company to the Queen would prove most benefi-
cial, and be highly popular in that country.
Sir E. BUMPIER LirrroN characterised the measure
as "audacious, incomplete, and unconsidered." It
was audacious, inasmuch as it converted an adminis-
trative body which arrested every unwise act of the
Executive Government into a set of " irresponsible
nominees of the Minister of the day." It was in-
complete, because it did not give " a single security
for that wholesome restraint on despotic and pre-
cipitate enactments " effected by the checks proposed
to be removed. And it was "unconsidered," because
the proposed number of the council would be wholly
unable to set through the practical business of their

office, and becatise, while the Government asserted
that the measure will not add to their patronage,
that patronage would be enormously increased, and-e
of a character peculiarly dangerous, for it would
change
as
required
reda
o
apply to members of that house. But, besides the
actual demerits of the measure, Sir E. B. Lytton
raging.unprop unpropitious
state t o
of
war urged a strong preliminary objection to its introduc.
lrion a t
a was still time so
exceptional treatment and prompt action ; and he
objected to legislate for the permanent necessities of
peace when the accidental exigencies of war were
paramount. In its normal condition, the Government
of a country should be guided by prudence and deli-
beration, and he believed that the very series of
checks and counterchecks now complained of had
really saved the British empire in India from the
many fatal blun lers which would have been com-
mitted by a rash Minister had lie had for his only
advisers the "complaisant nominees " of himself and
his party. Political changes among Orientals were
always suspected, and to change in the midst of a
rebellion would be regarded as a compromise with
the rebels. It was alleged by Lord Palmerston and
Sir C. Lewis that under the existing system there
was no responsibility ; whereas the argument of Sir
C. Wood, whose speech that night had answered his
speech in 1853, tended to show that the whole
responsibility rested upon the President of the Board
of Control. The evils of the double Government
had never occurred to Lord Palmerston, till when!
Till any check or countercheck whatever threatened
to be extremely inconvenient to the single Govern-
ment of the noble lord. But supposing the,re were
defects in the present system—supposing the mode
of communication between the two boards to be too
prolix, could not these defects be cure.' without
destroying the East India Company? Assuming
that they could not, was he therefore to accept the
" miserable substitute " which Government pro-
posed ?--
Am I therefore obliged to accept the principle of your
bill? Why, the hon. member for Reigate himself, though
he is going to vote for the bill, said he would not accept
its details. (Cheers.) Did he not tell the bone that he
would wish the council to be more independent—that it
should be constituted not by nomination but by some
principle of election ? ( Cheers.) Why, sir, is that a
mere detail of the bill ? Look at the bill ! Nomination is
its principle, its very axletree. (Hear, hear.) It is said
that you may get the same men as now form the ornament
of the Court of Directors to sit in your new council,
so that the highest inducement held out to you is
that you may possibly get for your new council a por-
tion of the wisdom which now distinguishes that board
which you are called upon to abolish. (Laughter and
cheers.) Ido not believe that any of the more eminent
directors will condescend to sit as mere Ministerial nomi-
nees at that board which you proposed to institute. [Mr.
V. Smith made a gesture of dissent.] The right hon.
gentleman the President of the Board of Control shakes
his head. I don't know whether there is much in it to
shake. (Roars of laughter.) But suppose some of these
men do sit at the board you propose, can you not recognise
the immense distinction between a board animated by an
honest pride in its own independent existence, in the
glory of an ancient name, and generously emulous to vie
with the Queen's Government in the excellence of its ap-
pointments, ar.il a council composed of exactly the rune
men, but having no permanence in their dignity, and no
pride in the exercise of their functions? Take the tight
most eminent men in this House of Parliament; place
them as members of a legislative council in the court of
some neighbouring absolute sovereign, do you mean to tell
me that they would then have anything like the seine high-
spirited intelligence, the same pure and noble feeling of re-.
sponaibility as those by which they are now influenced?
No, sir, if you want clerks, call them clerks, and let them
be nominated. If you want to have councillors, councillors
must be free. (Loud cheers.)

•
As to the superintending and vigilant wisdom of the
house being devoted t 3 the affairs of India, before
the House of Commons could habitually interfere
with the affairs of India with discrimination
and judgment, "it must Orientalise itself; it
must learn to look with familiar complacency on
an Eastern policy utterly at variance with our own
free institutions and at forms of a mythological reli-
gion which pervade the whole of the Indian character,
but which it would be impossible for any one but a
philosopher to comprehend ":
Depend on it, the house will not incur that danger ; it
his not even the leisure to do it. We shall never very
actively interfere with the despotism you
propose to estab-
lish, except when we can injure a hostile Government or
imitate the Chancellor of the Exchequer and asperse some
illustrious name. (Cheers.) Be that as it may, I content
myself now with the simple declaration in the name of
common sense that this is the moment not to legislate, but
to arm. This is the moment in which we should give to
the authority already established for India ail the force of
our own unanimity—this is the moment in which we
should not be damping the ardour of our people by stig-
matising our own rule, but encouraging them to pour torth
all the force they can muster for the defence of their coun-
trymen, their women, and their children. (Loud cheers-)
Sir, that Indian empire has just passed through the perils
of a mutinous army. It is now exposed to the more dan-
gerous ordeal of an organised fivouritism awl iihbelLY-
It was won by the valour and intellect of the middle
class. It is for you to say whether, lieuoeforcht it 4114