The Sun.
London, England, 1853-07-26 00:00:00

elect the council or other body whom they might appoint
to be the advisers of the minister for India ; but they
notpcorlinldeinle of this
consistently,
with theeoinscshteanrttleyr,
woirthwtihteh
very
existence of the East India Company, place upon the
biil, or -ev en
electoral body by whom the directors were chosen any
other class of persons than those who were holders of East
India Stock.
Mr. T. BARING saw no force in the argument of the
President of the Board of Control, that the constituency
must be confined to the holders of East India Stock. The
right hon. gentleman had himself introduced a great change
in that principle, by giving to the Crown the power of no-
minating to the Court of Directors without any appeal to
the Court of Proprietors, and without the qualification on
the part of the nominees of being holders of stock. If the
principle were applicable to the Court of Directors, it
ought to be so also to the constituency who elected them.
He wished to see an elective body whose interests should
be identical with those of India, and who should be per-
manent and independent—a body to whom the Government
might look in 1874 for the means of efficiently carrying on
the government of India. On these grounds he should
support the amendment to be proposed by the hon. mem-
ber for Warwickshire, which, if carried, would certainly
identify the Court of Proprietors with the interests of
India. He approved also of an extension of the Court of
Proprietors, because it would materially affect the evil
system of voting by proxy. He was afraid, however, that
the amendinentof the lion. member for Montrose would
not meet his views.
Lord J. RUSSELL begged to observe, before the com-
mittee divided, that the lion. member for Huntingdon
carried the matter far beyond the Government proposition
or the necessity of the case. The Government proposed to
deal with a body, anomalous indeed, but whose practical
administration of the government of India had been for
the welfare of India; whereas the hon. member for Hunt-
ingdon would create a new and strange body, an indepen-
dent body, standing between the Crown and the people of
India, and the working of which was a matter altogether
of uncertainty. The point was one, at all events, which
should be left to the wisdom of Parliament at some future
time ; it was quite inappropriate on the present occasion.
The committee then divided. The numbers were—

~ 54

For the clause
Against it
Majority —2o
The clause was consequently lost.
Mr. BLACKETT then moved to add the following words
to clause 22:—"And whereas doubts have been entertained
as to the extent of the powers granted to the Governor-
General in Council by the 43d sec. of the said act of the 3d
and 4th years of King William IV., it is hereby declared
that the said Governor-General in Council shall have full
powers to enact, alter, or amend any laws for the said ter-
ritories (subject to the restrictions specified in the said 43d
section of the said act, as well as to the right of disallowance
of such laws vested in the Court of Directors by the 44th
section of the same), without any previous sanction of the
said Court of Directors, except in the cases reserved by the
46th section of the said act, notwithstanding any provision
to the contrary contained in former acts or charters still in
force and unrepealed."
Sir C. WOOD opposed the clause on the ground that
there was no doubt whatever with regard to the existing
state of the law. There was an old axiom that prevention
was better than cure. For that reason he thought it right
that the Government should possess the power which they
did, and he should therefore oppose the clause.
The clause was then negatived without a division.
Mr. RICH, who had given notice to move a clause, in-
quired before doing so whether his right hon. friend had
adopted any regulations, and if so, what regulations, to
provide for the great difficulties which attended the admis-
sion of the young natives of India into the college at Hal-
leybury
Sir C. WOOD said it was impossible that he should have
made any regulations of the nature referred to until he
knew whether the house would assent to the principle of
the bill which he had introduced.
Mr. RICH concluded, then, that the right hon. gentle-
man had prepared no regulations on the subject. Although
he was certain that it would be rejected, he felt bound to
move the resolution of which he had given notice, and to
press it to a division in order to show the sense entertained
of what was due to the natives, not in word, but in deed.
The hon. gentleman then moved a clause giving greater
practical efficiency to the 87th section of the act 3d and 4th
of William IV., c. 85, which declared that no native of her
Majesty's Indian territories, nor any natural born subject
of her Majesty resident therein, should by reason only of
his religion, place of birth, descent, colour, or any of them
be disabled from holding any place, office, or employment
under the said company.
Sir H. MADDOCK could not support the motion.
Mr. BRIGHT believed that justice might be done to the
natives of India without diminishing the sources of employ.
ment for Europeans in that country, or reducing their
emoluments. He was convinced that arrangements might
be made which would render the natives of India just as
well satisfied with British rule as the Europeans in India
were themselves ; and it was because he believed that the
proposition before the committee was just in itself, and
consistent with the interests of both countries, that he
asked the committee to assent to it and to force the Presi-
dent of the Board of Control to insert it in the bill.
Sir C. WOOD observed that the object of her Majesty's
Government was to do justice to all classes in India, and to
extend the employment of the natives, not only with re-
gard to the numbers to whom employment was given, but
also by promoting them to higher situations than they had
hitherto filled. The hon. member for Richmond had stated
that the clause in the act of 1833 had been a perfect nullity.
Mr. RICH explained that what he had said was, that
that clause was a nullity so far as the covenanted service
was concerned. It was true that natives had been admit-
ted, under the company's authority, to minor situations,
but they then reached a wall which, by the rules of the
covenanted service, was impassable.
Sir C. WOOD proceeded to say that the hon. member
for Manchester (Mr. Bright) had stated that the clause had
been an entire nullity, and that the natives had not been
admitted into the service of the company.
Mr. BRIGHT explained that he had said that natives
were now only employed in offices which were just as ac-
cessible to them before the clause was passed, and the bar-
rier which that clause was supposed to throw down still
existed.
Sir C. WOOD said the object of the clause to which the
hon. member referred was to promote the general employ-
ment of natives in India, and if the natives had been gene-
rally employed the clause was not a nullity. The hon.
member for Manchester had complained that much higher
salaries were given to Europeans than to the natives of In-
dia, but in the evidence taken by the committee it was dis-
tinctly shown that a much higher salary was required to
induce a man of ability to leave this country to undertake
office in India, and to expose himself to the climate of that
country, than would be received for the performance of
similar duties at home. It was necessary that European
superintendence should be maintained in India, and large
salaries must be paid to officers who occupied high posi-
tions, and who were called upon to discharge important
duties. He must observe, however, that natives of India
had been admitted to much higher offices than had here-
tofore been open to them, and Lord Dalhousie had given
to a native the appointment of magistrate at Calcutta.
Reference had been made to the petitions which had been
presented to Parliament from India, but it was well known
that those petitions were not wholly the productions of
the natives, for they were partly got up by the English
editors of newspapers. He would undertake to say that
one of the petitions was written and got up by the editor
of a newspaper at Madras—(hear, hear)—and was not, as
it was represented to be, the spontaneous production of the
natives. It was not necessary, in order to insure the ge-
neral employment of the natives, that they should be
largely admitted into the covenanted service. The door
was thrown open to them, practically, to a far greater ex-
tent than before by the general admission of natives to
Haileybury College, and, for his own part, he believed
that natives might be admitted safely and advantageously
into the covenanted service.
Lord STANLEY was afraid that the right hon. baronet
was not fully aware of the importance of this amendment.
Upon it turned the whole question whether or no the na-
tives of India were to be admitted to the civil service of
the company. For himself, he thought the proposal of the
Government, which professed to throw open the civil ser-
vice to unlimited competition, but which at the same time
absolutely excluded natives of India, was a retrograde step.
He did not say that because he approved of the old system
of patronage, but because, while the old system could not
have been permanent, the present plan would not be felt to
be an abuse in this country, whatever it might be in India,
and it would therefore be allowed to continue without im-
provement. He confessed he did not think it at all likely
that any of the natives of India would come over to be
educated at Haileybury ; but that was the less to be re-
gretted, because the educational establishments in Calcutta
and other large towns in India were such as prevented the
slightest fear of the education of the natives being much
inferior to what it would be if they were educated in
Europe. He should vote for the amendment.

Mr. LOWE said he could not avoid expressing his surprise
at the tone in which this question was taken up and dis-
cussed. Hon. members founded themselves on clause 87
of the act of 1833, which declared that no native should be
disqualified, and they wished to see the spirit of it carried
out. But in the military service, where no change had
been made, the effect of that very clause was to produce
an exclusion of natives. If that section was to be taken
as the groundwork of their policy upon this question, it
applied as strongly to military covenanted service as to
civil covenanted service. By this bill they proposed, in-
stead of exercising a patronage confined to Europeans, to
open the doors of Haileybury to any native of India capable:
of passing the requisite ordeal. Colour, religion, and
descent had hitherto been disqualifications, but they would
be so no longer. The bill, in fact, fully carried out the
meaning of the clause, and it was, therefore wrong to op-
pose the bill in this particular, as if it were not intended to
give full effect to the principle of the clause. It might be
certainly that there would not be many Indians who would
be able to compete with success, but that was not the fault
of the bill, but the fault of the system of education pur-
sued in India. Then, it was said, that poverty might in-
terfere to prevent the competition, and it was suggested,
that a third of the admission should be open to competi-
tion in India, If that system were adopted, however, it
would be found that the effect would be that those who
were elected under examination in India would be inferior
to those elected under the examinations in England. Be-
sides, if the principle were good for anything, why should
the numbers of admissions be limited to a third ? His
opinion was, the Hindoos ought to receive fair opportuni-
ties for competition, and nothing more. His belief was
that the bill was unjustly accused, and that for the first
time it broke through the restrictions of European mono-
poly, more than that which a growing nation ought not to
concede.

Mr. M. MILNES said he could not vote for the clause of
the hon. member for Richmond, although it appeared to
be a fair logical deduction from the conclusions to which
the house had come. The effect of this system of compe-
tition, he was convinced, would be to open the Indian
population to the conviction that these ranks and honours
were impossible for them fairly to obtain.
After a few words from Mr. PHILLIMORE,
Mr. RICH replied, and
The committee then divided—
For Mr. Rich's clause
Against it
Majority
The clause was, consequently, rejected.

47
173
-126

Mr. NE WDEGATE moved the addition of the following
clause, with a view of giving the proprietors of East India
stock votes according to the value of their stock :—" At
every ballot for the election of directors of the East India
Company, the proprietors of stock or shares in any corn-
any or association of persons established by authority of
arliament, or of the government of India, for the purpose
of effecting or carrying on by means of joint stock any un-
dertaking
of irrigation, drainage, railway or other com-
munication, or other object of internal improvement in
(India, under the supervision of the Government thereof
such proprietors being qualified as hereinafter mentioned),
shall be entitled to vote in respect of their paid up stock
or shares, according to the scale following, that is to say,
one vote in respect of 2,000/. ; two votes in respect of
4,0004 ; three votes in respect of 7,0001, ; four votes in