The Sun.
London, England, 1853-06-28 00:00:00

cannot be pretended that free or legislative government is
at this moment possible. (Hear, hear.) It has been said
that the measure which the Government have proposed
has no character of permanency about it. I admit that
the measure, as we propose it, is not, as heretofore pro-
posed, for any fixed period, however extended. It is in-
definite on the face of it ; but with reference to perma-
nence, this is my opinion, that if the measure be good,
with the alterations which we propose, it will be for the
permanent government of India. If the alterations which
we propose are by experience proved to be defective, it
will be open at any time to the wisdom of Parliament to
apply the necessary corrective, whereby we shall have with
the advantage of permanence every facility for correcting
imperfections which experience may prove to exist. (Hear,
bear.) I must say, although I differ widely from the mo-
tion of the noble lord which we are now discussing, I
heard his speech, in proposing it, with very great pleasure.
It was a speech of great ability. It was a speech distin-
guished by candour, and the absence of anything like
party acrimony or party feeling. (Cheers.) I think the
noble lord has done well in employing his leisure time in
honourably visiting distant continents, and enabling him-
self to form a correct judgment of different nations in
immediate connection with the Government of this coun-
try. He thereby qualifies himself to pronounce opinions,
and to sustain that high name which he bears, and that
hereditary talent which he would be unworthy of his
father if he did not possess. (Cheers.) I say I heard his
speech with great pleasure, but at the same time I thought
it would have been more vigorous if it had been less can-
did, and that the number of admissions weakened the effect
of the proposition he maintained. Let me call attention
to how large those admissions are. In the first place, ho
does not contend there is any necessity for consulting the
native population of India. That admission is altogether
inconsistent with the doctrine propounded by the honour-
able member for Montrose, that there ought to be delay,
because the people of India have not yet had a full oppor-
tunity of expressing their opinion. I demur, however, to
that fact, and I should contend, if necessary, that they
have had ample opportunity. But in the view of the
noble lord, considering the state of civilisation in India,
and the capacity of the people to judge of the measures of
the Government, it is not at all desirable to consult the
natives of India upon the question now before the house.
(Hear, hear.) The next admission of the noble lord is that
the inquiry by the committee was protracted beyond the
period expected by those who proposed it. If there were
any doubt on that subject when the noble lord made the
motion, it has been entirely removed by the speech of the
right hon. member for Stamford, who was President of
the Board of Control under the Government of Lord Derby,
and moved the appointment of that committee. The right
hon. gentleman says that at the close of the last session of
Parliament, when the committee was about to separate, he
himself declared that, in his opinion, with reference to the
great question of the home and Indian government, the in-
quiry had been carried to that point where it was possible
to form a correct judgment ; and as far as he was con-
cerned, and the Government which he represented on that
committee, his mind was made up, and he was prepared
on the part of that Government to propose a measure in
the present session of Parliament. The hon. and learned
gentleman the member for Bath said, somewhat taunt-
ingly, if the case were reversed, and hon. gentlemen oppo-
site sat here, and we sat there, we should proceed in a very
different course. It so happened I attended that com-
mittee, and I believe I was the person who suggested in
the resolution the words, " that the tendency of the evi-
dence was in favour of the government as now constituted,
both at home and in India." I was also of opinion, and
moved an amendment, which was carried, that although the
tendency of the evidence was as then stated, it would not
be prudent to close the inquiry, and that it ought to
be renewed in the present session. I thought it necessary
to move that amendment hem's° I believed the mind of

the President of the 13;trd-Of 6;nlr;l;;;;Tefiniti;el3;
made up that he was prepared to close the inquiry, and
legislate upon the subject as it then stood. (Hear.) The
noble lord's next admission is, that the witnesses called be-
fore the committee are chiefly servants of the company,
who have left India not to return. Does that invalidate
their testimony ? Quite the contrary. Were they about
to return, it might be said they were more or less in-
fluenced by personal considerations. But here they are,
men who, generally speaking, have won a noble and
honourable independence by services in India, and have
returned to their native land to enjoy that independence ;
their opinions are valuable on account of the knowledge
they have acquired, and trustworthy because they have no
intention to return to the service of the Company. The
next declaration by the noble lord is this : " If you had a
measure ready, I say with Lord Dalhousie, the sooner you
legislate the better." We have a measure ready, and we
propound this measure as the result of the fullest, most
anxious, and most ample consideration. The noble lord
commented rather adversely on our conduct with regard to
Lord Dalhousie's letter. I can only say that, having the
opinion of Lord Dalhousie expressed in the strongest pos-
sible manner, we should have betrayed our trust if we had
not laid before the British Parliament the best means of
forming a judgment of the prudence or danger of delay.
Lord Dalhousie said : " I ask not what your measure is ;
I make no inquiry into that subject ; but I say this—make
up your mind with respect to the course which you ought
to pursue, and having made up your mind, I warn you
there is no safety in any delay.' We have prepared our
measure, we have risked everything on it, and the noble
lord says : " If you have a measure ready, the sooner you
legislate the better."
Lord STANLEY—Pardon me. Yon have rather misun-
derstood what I said. I said I did not know exactly what
were the words employed by Lord Dalhousie, but I appre-
hended they came to nothing more than if a measure were
ready and fit to be carried, the sooner it were carried so
much the better.

, Sir J. GRAHAM—He says more than that ; that it is our
duty to propose a measure, and there is no safety in delay.
We propose to legislate immediately, and I understood
the noble lord to say, if we were prepared, he could
not gainsay the advice of Lord Dalhousie. (Hear.) I
again repeat, on the part of the Government, that the de-
claration of Lord Dalhousie was not in answer to any ques-
tion put by any member of the Government, but it was an
opinion which he thought it proper and necessary to con-
vey, and although in no official shape, yet coming from so
high a quarter, we should have failed in our duty if we
had not acted on it, and acting on it, if we had not avowed
the authority. (Hear.) The noble lord goes on to say—
" There is no insurrection—there never was any insurrec-
tion, except at Lahore, and the temporary suspension of
legislation never produced any disturbance." I am not
prepared to run the risk—(hear)—and I would remind the
noble lord we never had a suspension of legislation. For 70
years' we have had the same system of government invari-
ably renewed before the time of the limited grant expired,
and I think it a dangerous experiment to run the risk of
insurrection—an experiment in which lam not prepared
to recommend the house to concur. (Hear.) Again, the
noble lord said he approved of many of the provisions of
this bill. As far as I can collect from the speech of the
noble lord—a speech remarkable for its perspicuity and
also for its fairness, and which would have been much
more telling if it had been less fair—there are only two or
three of our propositions to which he objects. I will not
press the argument of my right hon. friend the member for
Edinburgh, triumphant as I consider it to be, that all
legislation as to the Home Government is second in im-
portance to that which relates to the Indian Government;
but I will remark that, in the course of this long debate, I
I have not heard any material objections to our proposals
respecting the Indian Government. I certainly have heard
no such objection on the part of the noble lord. What
are the leading propositions ? We propose to give a new
character to the Legislative Council, approaching, as near
as possible, to a system of representation. We infuse
new life and vigour by making ex officio members men,
of the highest character and station. We give the Go-
vernor-General not only a seat but a voice in the Legis-
lative Council, and it is quite open for consideration
whether the discussions shall be private or not. We
propose to place the armies of the East India Company
under the command of a general officer nominated by her
Majesty. We propose to give a vote to the Crown in the
nomination of the members of council, hitherto exclusively
in the company, and not controlled by the Crown. We
propose to separate from the Governor-General, and place
under a lieutenant-governor, the province of Bengal.
These are some of the great features of the changes which
we propose in the Indian government. They cannot be
said to be slight or unimportant. They are, as I believe,
large and salutary changes—changes sustained by evidence
—changes generally approved--and changes of which no
member of this house has yet expressed his disapprobation.
(Hear, hear.) Well, then, the question mainly refers to
the altaration in the government at home, and I under•
stand, with respect to the main provision, the noble lord
does not object to the absence of a fixed term.
Lord STANLEY was understood to say he would prefer '
a fixed term.

Sir JAMES GRAHAM—The next point is the change
of patronage, and that is hardly of secondary importance
to the absence of a fixed term. The noble lord willingly
concurs in the principle of competition, but, agreeing very
much with the late Lord Grenville, he doubts whether
there should not be a reservation in favour of universities
and great seminaries of learning, and a special reservation
in favour of children of civil and military. servants.
(Hear, hear.) At the right time I shall be quite prepared
to go into the question of general competition ; but that
should be in a subsequent stage, there being no reason
why, if the house goes into committee, these proposed
modifications and alterations of the noble lord should not
then be discussed in the fairest possible spirit. (Hear,
hear.) The third point of detail is the change in the com-
position of the court. That, I admit, is very important—
(hear, hear)—but it is a question of degree, and not
one of principle, and I cannot therefore understand
why on that account the noble lord should refuse going
into committee. Now, sir, the questions which are really
pending in this debate are two, as it appears to me. The
first is the question of delay ; the second is the question
of the double or single government. Both of these are, I
admit, of primary and cardinal importance ; but every-
thing else may be considered secondary to them, these
being, undoubtedly, the points that divide the opinion of
this house. I will apply myself to each of them, and, in
tho first place, I will deal with the question of delay.
This, sir, is a question of policy. I have already alluded,
in passing, to the opinion given by Lord Dalhousie on the
point ; but I cannot omit to glance at and recal to your
recollection the considerations which my honourable
friend the Secretary of the Board of Control urged, in the
very able speech which he made in resisting the amend-
ment (Hear.) The subject is an important one under any
circumstances ; its gravity and importance are, however,
increased in this case by the circumstances of the moment.
Look around that Indian empire. How is it surrounded ?
(Hear, hear.) In China, wo see a serious revolution, of
which, as yet, the ultimate result is uncertain—its more
immediate effects imperfectly developed. There is the
struggle between the Tartar races. 'We come next to the
war in Burmah. I hope and believe that that contest
is finally concluded, and that the danger, whatever it may
have been in that quarter, has been overcome ; but still
the issue is doubtful ; and I cannot overlook the fact that
we have war overhanging us in a very menacing manner,
and that the state of affairs in the East generally points
to the wisdom of the advice given in another place by the
highest authority where India is concerned (Lord Ellen-
borough), who has said distinctly, within the last six
weeks, that the time has arrived when it became our duty
to put our house in vrder. (Hear, hear.) We have, in
addition to this, other and most important authorities.
Lord Ellenborough does not advise delay. Then there is
Lord Hardinge, one of the bravest defenders of that
great empire to which he has so largely added by his
conquests—what does he say ? Does Lord Hardinge
counsel delay ? On the contrary, he has told us that time
presses, that time flies, and that, whatever your decision,
you should decide quickly, in addition to deciding wisely.
Such, also, is the opinion of Lord Dalhousie—such
that of Mr. Bird. These are all persons speaking without
reference to party, persons who held posts of high authority
in India. We have also the opinion of the right hon.
member for Stamford (Mr. Herries), the President of the
Board of Control under Lord Derby. So far from differing
with us on this point or receding from what he held upon
it, and notwithstanding the pain it must have cost him to
differ from the son of the noble lord under whom he held
office—(hear, hear)—ho thought it contrary to his public
duty and inconsistent with his view of what was right in

a matter of this kind to oppose the Government, and he
said that we were rightin legislating at once. What then,
I was the opinion of Sir John Hobhouse, being connected
with the government of British India ? What is the opi-
nion of Lord Panmiire, who, though connected with it for
a shorter time, is still conversant with its affairs. That
opinion was stated to the house explicitly. You have,
then, the opinion against delay of Governors-General of
India, of Presidents of the Board of Control—you have
now in his place the hon. member for Huntingdon (Mr.
Baring), the chairman of the committee of inquiry; and he,
who spared no pains exemplarily to fulfil that office, has
is this house made a speech which it is impossible any
member can have heard without noticing the impressive
manner in which it told of the honest conviction produced
on the hon. member's mind by the evidence brought before
the committee, warned the house of the danger of delay,
and exhorted the house, by its desire to serve the public!,
to ward off perils mightily affecting the empire, and to
legislate without hesitation. (Hear.) Now, sir, these
are matters of authority. I would for one moment glance
at what appears equally strong, that is, the matter of rea-
son. It must never be forgotten how slender in point of
force is our tenure of empire in India. We must recollect
always that it is mainly an empire of opinion. Ours is
not numerical strength, but our position we owe to the
confidence of the country in the permanence of our rule,
the steadiness of our government, and the firmness of the
hand that grasps it. (Cheers.) By shaking that confidence
you disturb the very foundations of our Indian empire.
Is it wise wantonly to disturb them. (Hear, hear.) Let
me intreat of you to consider the position of the Govern-
ment which makes this proposition. If we had consulted
our ease—if we had consulted our party interest—if
we had consulted even the convenience of the house, which
every Government under representative institutions is
bound to consider—can you suppose that we should have
been desirous of forcing upon you such important legisla-
tion at this time ? Wo had before us the prospect of a di-
vision from, or among, our friends ; and it was painful to
differ from any members who had given us a general sup-
port—we were incurring the risk of opposition, joined to
theirs, from our more usual opponents. I ask, then, could
anything but a most paramount sense of public duty have
at such a time, and under such circumstances, induced any
Administration to incur the risk of bringing such a propo-
sition before Parliament ? I protest that if ever there was
a decision taken from conscientious motives and from a con-
scientious desire for the public good, that is the decision at
which we have arrived, and to which we invite you. I will
now turn to the second question—that of the double go-
vernment. Upon this point I admit that the directors of
the East India Company, acting in concert with her Ma-
jesty's Government in governing India is an anomaly, but
then, I say, are we not surrounded by anomalies in respect
to our Indian empire ? Is not our position in India the
greatest of all anomalies? In our own representative sys-
tem, too, are there not anomalies ? It is a system of check
and counter-check—the balance of power, surely, is not in
principle objected to by the British Legislature. As I con-
tend, you have the full advantage of the longest experi-
ence, an experience of seventy years, in favour of this mode
of governing India. But then we are charged with caution
and timidity in our course. That objection has been made
more particularly by the hon. member for Bath (Mr.
Phinn). Perhaps it may be alleged against me and some
of my colleagues that innovation in the abstract has no
great terror for us. (Laughter.) We have innovated ; per-
haps we may innovate again. But I say it is incum-
bent on all innovators to show the necessity of their pro-
posed innovation ; the onus of proof in all cases falls on
those who ask for change ; and in this case, on the same
same principle, those who ask for more than we, must
prove the existence of the necessity which gives them a
claim to be heard on their demand. The government of
that country is held by us on a certain footing ; we try our
ground, feel our way, in altering our relations to it. Pro-
ceeding prudently and cautiously, we propose to apply
remedies for which we do not even claim that they are
theoretically perfect, but which we believe are all that are
at present shown to be practically. necessary. (Hear.) We
might go further ; but in my opinion those who urge our
doing-so are bound to show the absolute necessity of the
steps that they advise, and the changes they wish us to
make. The noble lord (Lord Stanley) made a most impor-
tant admission applicable to the point. He said the tree
must be tried by its fruits. lam perfectly willing to rest
the whole question on that issue. On the whole, then, has
or has not this double government worked well? What says
the evidence? The noble lord, indeed, rejects Indian opi-
nion—native opinion; but what more evidence would you
get if you sat a longer time ? The hon. member for the
West Riding (Mr. Cobden) talked of wishing to cross-ex-
amine every member of this house. Every person in this

country capable of giving advice in this Mater has been
called before the committee, and has been already examined.
You have already three Governors-General—you have
Lord Ellenborough, Lord Hardinge, and Mr. Bird. Of
civil servants of the company, you have the names of Sir
George Clerk,Willoughby, Prinsep, Marshman, Trevelyan,
Halliday; and, in addition to these, you have the name of
a man second in ability to none in this country in any de-
partment, and who enjoyed the longest experience, Mr.
Mill. I have not myself had the advantage of serving on
the committee this session, but I attended regularly during
last session, and the concurrence of testimony then, I well
remember, on this issue of judging the tree by its fruits,
was remarkably in favour, on the whole, of the good
government of India. The honourable member for the
West Riding began his speech by referring to Mr. Marsh-
man. The honourable member for Manchester relied on
him very much in his anonymous character as the " The
Friend of India." But now he has appeared openly in
print, in the shape of a letter addressed to the honourable
member himself. The tree is to be judged by its fruits.
I will not weary you, but I have made a short extract
from this letter of Mr. Marshman's in which he tells you
in a most compendiousmanner what have been the changes,
" the fruits," in the internal government of India since
1833. He gives a summary somewhat to this effect :
" Small Crown Court established—municipal institutions
introduced—cognizance of all suits entrusted to native
judges—civilians instructed and examined in native lan-
guages—liberty of unlicensed printing established."• (An
ironical hear, hear, from Mr. Bright.) My honourable
friend cannot doubt that. The Friend of India is a proof
of unlicensed printing ; and I must say, from a pretty
good acquaintance with the Indian press, that it is
carried to as great an extent there as in any other
country. (Hear, hear.) Mr. Marshman goes on to say :
"Native languages restored in courts of justice—Suttee
and infanticide suppressed—state lotteries forbidden—
slavery abolished—railroads begun—electric telegraph in
progress—uniform and cheap postage introduced." That is
Mr. Marshman's summary of his experience of the last 18
years of the government of India; remember, we are now
trying the tree by its fruits. Then there is Mr. Halliday,
a most able witness, who approves of every one of the
changes effected in the government of India, and whose
experience results from his having resided there for the last
20 or 30 years. With regard to the home Government,
hesitates; he has not the same advantages forjudging of that;
he hesitates, and it cannot be said his evidence goes further.
(Hear, hear.) But again, to try the tree by its fruits. I
was associated with the Duke of Wellington In the govern-
ment of India in a moment of the greatest danger. We
have heard something of a question put elsewhere, as to
whether sons of horsedealers might not be sent out to
India. At the time I speak of the Queen's army had met
with great disaster; two armies had met with great dis-
aster ; the one was commanded by Sir J. Pollock, the
other by General Nott. The disaster was retrieved by
them—by the son of a humble shopkeeper in the city of
London, and the son of a publican in the remote corner of
South irales. (Hear, hear.) These two generations sus-
tained the honour of British arms, and preserved from
destruction our great British empire. Try the tree by
its fruits, and say is this a system to be lightly set aside
—to be hastily rejected? It is a system with which
Sir R. Peel and the Duke of Wellington were they
alive now, would entreat you not hastily to tamper.
And not only is the military service worthy of our praise
—great as the achievements in war of the military have
been—yet more has been done by the civil service for
the promotion of the happiness of India. My right hon.
friend the member for Edinburgh has referred to a splendid
speech on India made by Lord Granville. I heard a speech
not inferior to that delivered by my right hon. friend him-
self not twenty years ago. Ido not profess to quote his
exact words ; but, if I remember rightly the spirit of it,
ho said—Under this system you have had men adminis-
teiing the government of millions of subjects; you have
had thorn leading victorious attacks; you have had them
dictating terms of peace at the gates of conquered capitals;
you have had them administering the revenues of mighty
provinces ; have had them residing at the courts of tribu-
tary kings ; and yet these men have returned to their na-
tive country with little more than a decent competency,
and sometimes in circumstances even of poverty. (Cheers.)
This was so—this still is so. Again, then, I say, try the
system by its fruits ; prune it, trench about it if you will,
but, I implore you, hesitate before you cut it down.
(Hear, hear.) I believe it to be good at heart—on the
whole, a good system of government. Ido not say that
it is incapable of improvement. We have endeavoured to
improve it • and in India itself I have shown you how
numerous have been the improvements. I will not now
enter into details, but I wish, before I sit down, to make
an observation on one remark of the honourable member
for the West Riding. He contrasts India with the co-
lonies. I ask whether any colony can be produced in
which any improvements in the last eighteen years have
taken place at all to be compared with those in the inter-
nal government of India during the same period? As to
war, it has been my fortune to know intimately five gen-
tlemen .who have gone out as governors-general to India.
My earliest, my most valued friend, Lord W. Bentinck,
expressed his intentions, and was enabled to carry them
out. I know Lord Auckland, Lord Ellenborough, Lord
Hardinge, and LOrd Dalhousie. I know their intentions
were identically the same with those of Lord William
Bentinck. It was their firm determination to have
avoided war—to be peaceful administrators, and to
spare the country the curse and the evil of need-
less war. I entirely agree with the testimony of
the right honourable gentleman the member for Thetford
Mr. Herries) on this point. I know it was the intention
of all these governors to have avoided war. lam confi-
dent it was not the home Government—neither the Queen's
ministers nor the Court of Directors—that urged upon these
governors in the slightest degree the policy of dissenting
from their peaceful intentions. It was not Britishlicy,
it was Indian necessity that produced these wars. (Hear.)
One and all were undertaken on the spot from a sense of
coming danger overriding the wishes of the men themselve ;
but in the discharge of an overwhelming public duty they
did not shrink from the responsibility of reversing their own
intentions, and by the necessities of the empire of being
driven to war. (Hoar.) The hon. member for the West
Riding talks of the declaration of Lord 'Dalhousie in
favour of annexation. It is owing to the very circum-
stances to which I before adverted, of duty and ne-
cessity, with an empire such as that which we pos-
sess in India, that notwithstanding all our self-deny-
ing ordinances here, notwithstanding the fixed inten•
tion ea the part of the governors-general themselves to
observe this policy—it is inherent in the nature of
an empire so large, with a frontier so exposed, and with
hostile states surrounding it on every side—it is inherent
in the difficulties of that government, with the strongest
desire to abolish war, with the strongest desire not need-
lessly to add to the extent of an empire so unmanageably
large, that from time to time preconceived opinions should
change, and previous resolutions be reversed. The hon.
member was shocked at the annexation of Pegu ; but has
he not heard of annexations by other governments not ab-
solute or despotic ? I have heard of declarations of annex-
ation without bounds on the continent of North America,
and of a determination not to allow any independent neigh
bour to exist on that great and mighty continent. These
are the unavoidable necessities of empire. What is true of
America is equally true of Asia, and there is great difficult
in declaring that you will not annex any additional coun-
try. My hon. friend thought the facts relating to the dis-
pute withßurmah of no great importance; but he should re-
collect that the last insult was added to many former insults
and that in the eye of an Asiatic community tame submission
would have been fatal to that empire. (Hear.) But let
me ask if single government would be a check to these
wars ? The case put is, that the check on the East India
Company is inefficient. But suppose it were removed,
and a direct government established, there might be some-
what greater promptitude, but surely there could be no

additional check as against war. But have we proposed no
check ? I contend that we have introduced a system
which will form a most admirable check. The annual
statement by a responsible Minister of the Crown of the
finances in India will give an opportunity to this house
of challenging every transaction with Indian interests
and Indian wars. (Hear, hear.) It is not my wish to
weary the house with details upon finance ; but again try
the merits of the system by its fruits. I will just glance
at the matter of finance. After the renewal of the
charter a large balance was appropriated in the extinc-
tion of the debt--rightly appropriated, I think, but with
the consent of Parliament, for it was done in pursuance of
an Act of Parliament. In 1833 the debt of India was
38,000,0001. It is now 53,000,0001. The addition, there-
fore' on the face of the account has been 15,000,0001. But
in 1833 there was a balance in the Exchequer of 8,400,0001.
The balance at present in the Exchequer is 15,000,0001.
Deducting therefore that surplus of 6,600,0001. from the
15,000,000/. apparently of additional debt, there does only
stand an addition of 8,400,0001. of Indian debt after the
Affghan war, the Burmah war, the Punjab war, and
the war in Scinde—four wars most expensive and most im-
portant, and they have been conducted, one and all, to a
successful conclusion. But then the weight of the debt
must bear some relation to the income of the state on
which it is charged. At the time of the passing of the
charter, in 1833, the debt, as I have said, was 38,000,0001.
The revenue at that time was 18,500,0001. In 1853 the
debt is 53,250,0001. But what is the revenue ? Is it
18,000,000? On the contrary, the income—the territorial
income and revenue of the East India Company—is
29,000,000/. Therefore, if the debt has increased 40 per
cent., the revenue has increased 55 per cent. in the same
time. But it may be said this does anything but prove
the improved condition of the people of India. That
would be true if you could show there had been
any increase of taxation during that period ? But
is it so ? On the contrary, the tax on salt has been re-
duced 25 per cent., and the whole of the transit duty his
been abolished. So much with reference to the finances of
India. (Hear, hear.) Something has been said about the
patronage of the directors. I have already told you how
that right has been exercised. The chairman of the com-
mittee will correct me if I am wrong, but I think I may
boldly state that, with every desire of procuring evidence
of malversation in the distribution of patronage, no suoh
proof bats been produced. (Hear, hear.) On the other
hand, I may mention with the greatest praise men who
have not been followers of the aristocracy, but men who
have been brought from the middle class—
" Curibus parviset paupere terra,
Missus in imperium magnum."

This has been the character, this is the character, of the
most distinguished servants of the East India Company,
such as Malcolm and Munroe. (Hear, hear.) I say, then,
that you may change your system—alter it if you please—
remove its imperfections if you can— but my firm and con-
fident belief is that greater and better men will not be sent
out to India under any other system than have been em-
ployed both in the civil and military service for the last
fifty years, and existing as it now exists. (Hear, hear.)
Now, with respect to the system of canvassing, I believe it
has not been conducive to the welfare of the country. And
why do I say so ? I believe some of the most distinguished
men have been excluded by not being willing to submit to
that canvass. One honourable member opposite was un-
willing to submit to that system. Mr. Willoughby, Mr.
Bird, and Mr. Robertson have also declared against it, and
upon the whole the weight of testimony is decidedly op-
posed to it. If there be anything unworthy in that can-
vass, it is connected with the promise of patronage as a
consideration for support. We strike at the very sys-
tem of undue canvass by our plan of open competi-
tion for the civil appointments, for the scientific ap-
pointments in the army, and for medical appoint-
ments. I think the diminished proportion of patronage,
with reference to the army, may safely be confided in
the manner proposed by this bill. The honourable
member for the West Riding says the plan is fatal to
the extended employment of the natives of India. On Ws
subject I may refer to the names of Elphinstone, Malcoltn,
and Munroe. Lord W. Bentinck partook of the opinion,
when he wont to India, that the natives were not suffi-
ciently trustworthy; but with the firmness and honesty
which so peculiarly characterised him, he, on his own re-
sponsibility, gave effect to the means of further employ-
ment. Did the East India Company interpose their autho-
rity, and reject that extension of employment to the na-
tives? Far from it. The hon. member for Honiton (Sir
J. W. Hogg) the other night read to the house a dispatch
from the East India Company, in which they highly com-
mended the system which Lord W. Bentinck had intro-
duced. I confidently believe that if it had been predicted
in 1833 to Elphinstone and Munroe and Malcolm that the
natives of India would be employed to the extent to which
they are now employed in 1853, the most sanguine hopes
would not have allowed them to believe that so great a
change could quietly have been effected in so short a time.
I will not weary the house by arguing in favour of the dis-
tinction between the covenanted and uncovenanted service.
I do not believe you can depart from that distinction in
the civil service, and maintain it in the military service.
Finding it existing—finding it has been maintained up to
the present time—l hold that it would be the greatest in-
discretion, the most wanton incurring of needless danger,
to break down that line of demarcation. Ido not believe
you could open the covenanted service in respect to civil
appointments and not greatly disturb it with reference to
military appointments. I will not push this topic farther,
but leave it to the sense and discretion of every one who
hehrs me to say whether his conscience does not tell him
that we ought to be careful on that subject. What more
has been done ? It has already been said, with respect to
general appointments, that 99 cases out of every 100 are ad-
4udicated upon by native judges. In 1833 they were very
inadequately rewarded. The stipendiary magistrate at Cal-
cutta receives a salary of 1,500/. a year. The great body, of
the judges, except of the lowest class, receive salaries vary-
ing from 1,5001. as a maximum to 360/, as a minimum ; and
very few of the natives receive salaries so high as 400/. I
am persuaded that there is a sincere desire on the part of
the British Government and of the Governor-General to
introduce more and more into the service of the public,
as their fitness by education shall render the extension of
the principle safe, the natives of the country. (Hear,
hear.) No apprehension of imaginary danger should in-
duce me to act with injustice to the people of that great
country, in withholding from them any share of power
for which their education fits them. But, on the other
hand, no fanciful notions of liberality, no schemes of
Government unsuited to that country, will, I hope, induce
the house to sanction any innovations of an untried and
dangerous character, however specious they may appear.
(Hear, hear.) I hope the house upon the whole will con-
sent to the second reading of this bill. There is, on the
part of the Government, every disposition to meet any
discussion in reference to its details in a spirit of the most
perfect candour. But I am satisfied that no more dan-
gerous course in the present critical circumstances could
be taken than to reject the measure, and that rejection
would be the effect of the adoption of the amendment of
noble lord. (Cheers.)
Sir H. MADDOCK said that the legislation now
intended would be imperfect and partial, and that the
bill did not legislate for India, nor provide for one-third of
the topics which ought to have been brought under the
consideration of Parliament. All that was now left undone
would have to be done at the discretion of the President of
the Board of Control. He should have voted against in-
troducing any such measure this session, but as this bill
had been introduced, he thought, were it rejected, that a
prejudicial effect would be produced on the minds of the
people of India, and he should therefore vote for the second
reading, in the hope that various suggestions which he
made in the course of his speech would be duly considered
in committee.
Mr. J. PHILLMORE charged Sir James Graham with
haiing sought to lead away the house from the real ques-
tion, which was, the result of the administration of the
company. He went at much length into details to show
the debased and oppressed condition of the natives, and
urged that Mr. Macaulay ought to have risen and declared
that the company had falsified the promises which he had
made in their name years before. He urged that we should
repent before repentance was too late, and do the people
of India the tardy justice of giving them a responsible
government. Parliament was now on its trial, and would
be judged by posterity.
Mr. M. MILNES had come to the conclusion that no
case had been made out for changing the Government of
India. We ought to be very cautious, under the circum-
stances, of pronouncing censure on the efforts which able
and honest men had made for the administration of that
country, and he thought that nothing more remarkable
had occurred in regard to that administration than might
have been expected from the historical and political diffi-
culties of the case. He had one objection to the Govern-
ment bill, namely, the provision for open competition,
from which ho did not believe that benefit would be de-
rived, but he should reserve this consideration for commit-
tee. The hon. member was frequently interrupted by calls
for division.

Mr. BRIGHT was not sure that, even if the bill were
less objectionable, it would not be advisable to delay it.
There could be no doubt that, a short time ago, the house,
the newspaper press, and, as he believed, the Government,
were, in favour of postponing legislation—as was the
opinion of India. He did not like the bill better for having
no fixed period mentioned in it; for' unstatesmanlike as it
was, it might have as long a run as the act which it was
to supplant. As regarded Lord Dalhousie's opinion, it was
probable that Sir J. Hogg, or some one else, had told that
nobleman what sort of a recommendation was desired.
He not believe any one, in or out of the house, was in
favour of the measure. Of course, all who were connected
with the company were for immediate legislation, for they
knew that, after two years delay, public opinion would
make a renewal of their power impossible. Delay, he de-
clared, was wisdom. Remarking that previous speakers on
the Government side had not defended the bill, but had
thought that in vindicating the company's administration
of the past they had done enough in support of a measure
for the future, he entered into a prolonged argument to
show that the Indian Government had neither been correct
in the theory nor advantageous in practice. He dwelt on
the misery of the peasantry and the internal violence
which was permitted to take place, argued that our courts
produced the perjury imputed to the natives, characterised
the great trunk road as a merely military and not a com-
mercial one, and showed how comparatively small was
the annual sum laid out in works, observing that the
town of Manchester alone had for years spent more in its
own improvements than had been spent in India by a go-
vernment drawing 29,000,0001. of taxes, and ruling more
than 100,000,000 of people. He had hoped to hear from
Mr. Macaulay all that could be said for the bill, and be-
lieved he had not been diappointed ; and, referring to Mr.
Macaulay's description of the enormous and uncontrolled
powers of a collector, he urged that these afforded an argu-
ment why a government which appointed such men should
be theoretically correct. He demanded why, if soldiers and
civil servants were Toady to go out and labour in India for
years, energetic commercial men were not, and the fault,
he contended, must be caused by mal-administration.
After some strictures on the financial condition of India,
he proceeded to examine the bill. Assailing the principle
on which the Indian administration was founded, he urged
that the proprietors had no control over the directors, the
latter had none over the secret committee, and that again
had none over tho Board of Control, nor had the press
or Parliament any power over the Indian Government, and
no bill tending to continue this mask and subterfuge
should receive anything but the condemnation he be-
stowed on the Government and on the present mea-
sure. The Government had certainly done much to de-
grade the Court of Directors by taking patronage from it,
and by showing an opinion that its constituency was unfit
to elect all its members, but no direct responsibility was
created as regarded a minister in that house, and the Pre-
sident of the Board of Control would shuffle away from
Indian questions as heretofore. He dwelt upon the popu-
larity
.which a government direct from the Crown would
enjoy in India. We were losing a great opportunity, and
he was unhappy that the bill had fallen into the hands of
a Minister unable to comprehend the importance of the
subject. By passing this bill we should ignore our own
constitution, and throw mud upon our representative in-
stitutions.

Mr. B. Seymour, Mr. Rich, and another hon. member
rose with Sir J. lloo,Y, but, iu deference to the call of the
house, gave way.
Sir J. W. HOGG claimed the kind indulgence of the