The Sun.
London, England, 1853-06-07 00:00:00

should persevere, he (Mr. Pharaore) trusted that he would
not receive the support of the horde.
Sir J. W. HOGG began by cliiMing the indulgence of
the house, upon which he should not have trespassed had
the ordinary course been adopted with respect to this bill.
But the course of the hon. member for Manchester, in not
only arguing against the double system of government, but
in preferring a frightful bill of indictment against the ad-
ministrators of that government, rendered it necessary that
he should, in self-defence, trouble the house at some length.
There appeared to be some division of labour. The hon.
member for Manchester had brought forward the indict-
ment, and the different counts were divided among other
gentlemen, and the hon. and learned gentleman who had
just sat down had taken the department of law and calcu-
lation. On this subject a great agitation had prevailed
out of doors ; he (Sir J. W. Hogg) would go further, and
say that a great clamour had prevailed. He was glad that
this agitation and clamour prevailed—he was glad that
associations had been formed—that every charge, private
or public, had been raked up against the East India Com-
pany, and had been circulated in speeches and pamphlets,
because the house and the country now knew everything
that industry, and he would add malignity, could collect
or invent to be put forth against the East India Company.
They had it all now ; true or untrue, they had it now.
Hitherto it had all been circulated without the opportunity
of reply; but he was happy that that opportunity was now
affordedin the only place where the charges could be met.
His right hon. friend bad urged strong and cogent reasons
for immediate legislation. That was the opinion of every
witness who had been examined and every person compe-
tent to give an opinion, and it was also the opinion of Lord
Dalhousie. The hon. member for Manchester repudiated
the authority of Lord Dalhousie, and stated that his
authority was of no greater weight than any other person's.
He believed that no one but the hon. gentleman would
make such an assertion. The hon. member for Manchester
had asked for delay because a committee on the subject
was sitting. That might at first sight appear to be a
reason, but every one who heard the speech of the hon.
gentleman knew that he did not refer to a tittle of the evi-
dence of any one witness, or to any document produced
before that committee. His speech consisted of shreds and
patches, bits which he had read in old pamphlets and
magazines, and the evidence of witnesses heard not before
the territorial committee, but before the cotton committee,
four years ago, over which the hon. member presided ; he
referred to periods long past, and to famines which oc-
curred long ago, one so long since as 1792, and to periods
prier to the rule of the East India Company, and when the
war with Tippoo was raging. The hon. member did refer
to Mr. Marshman, a witness before the territorial commit-
tee. But he did not read his evidence, but quoted Mr.
Marshman from the Friend of India, and that gentleman
being himself in this country; he repudiated him as a wit-
ness before the committee, and did not give a word of his
evidence. When the hon. gentleman spoke of the state of
Bengal, and stated that the peace of the country was dis-
turbed, did he read what Mr. Marshman said of the sys-
tem of police, and the generally peaceful state of the coun-
try ? On the contrary, he read from the Friend of India
an account of a row between two Indigo planters,
and • said that that was the condition of Bengal.
As well might a judgment be formed of the peace-
ful state of this country by reading the police reports.
If the honourable gentleman wished to know the state
of Bengal, why did he not read the evidence of Mr.
Marshman ? Few that heard the speech of his right hon.
friend (Sir C. Wood) but must have gone away knowing
much of the state of India ; his statement was clear, tem-
perate, and comprehensive. The hon. member for Man-
chester had sneered at that speech on the ground both of
its length and its matter, and he taunted his right hon.
friend with sending for information to Mr. Melvin and
others at the India House. That was rather a compli-
ment, for being new in office he had sent for information
to the records of India and those who had charge of them,
and he (Sir J. W. Hogg) wished that the hon. member for
Manchester had done the same and gone to sources as au-
thoritative, and if he had, the hon. gentleman would have
escaped many errors which he (Sir J. W. Hogg) would
take the liberty of exposing. The hon. gentleman had in
dulged in speculation as to how his right hon. friend had-
got up his speech, and he (Sir J. W. Hogg) would speculate
on the manner in which the hon. gentleman had got up his
speech. It appeared that those with whom the hon. gen-
tleman was associated got hold of anything in any book or
pamphlet against India, they caught up the scissor and cut
it out and sent it to the hon. gentleman, who strung it all
together, and, to use the favourite expression of the hon.
gentleman, that formed the "hems poem " of the getting
up of his speech. (Hear, hear, and a laugh.) India was
not a sealed book. There was no act or proceeding in re-
lation to India which was not public ; there was not one
rupee spent or received which was not regularly accounted
for. Papers were published relating to every transaction ;
there had been debates, committees on salt, on duties, on
cotton, on steam, and on every subject in which India was
concerned, and the aggregate of the information contained
in papers and reports filled 53 folio volumes—and yet they
were told that India was a sealed book. (Hear, hear.) If
the details were not known, the failure was not from, the
want of means of information, but from the want of indus-
try in those who had it in their power to acquire it. He
trusted the hon. and learned member for Leominster would
give him credit for this, that-where such mighty interests
were at stake they were not influenced by personal motives.
He (Sir J. W.. Hogg) declared his belief that immediaae
legislation was imperatively required. (Hear.) If the last
system had worked well, continue it. If it had defects,
remove them—and if it had failed in the great objects it
ought to have attained, away with the system and its
instruments, and form a better government; but do it
now, do not hand over India to agitation, do not spread
distrust over that mighty continent, do not paralyse the
power and influence of the local government, and render it
incompetent to do good and to restrain ill. He believed
that delay in legislation would destroy peace and tranquil-
lity, would impede the progress of useful reform, and if not
destroy, at least lessen the almost superstitious belief in the
power of this country which now prevailed. Ho did not
wish to raise alarm, but he conscientiously believed that if
there was any delay in legislation it would spread doubt,
mistrust, and apprehension over India as to the future, and
force into mischievous activity the worst elements of inse-
curity. Therefore, whatever was the legislation, he hoped
it would be prompt and immediate. The hon. member for
Manchester had said truly that the main question was the
system of double government. He (Sir J. W. Hogg)
agreed in that—and it was because he agreed in
the principle of double government, that he should vote for
the introduction of this measure. The hon. member for
Manchester had pointed out objections to a double govern-
ment. A favourite expression of the hon. gentleman was
that double government was a mere sham ; that it caused
delay and obstruction in carrying on the government; and
that there was no responsibility anywhere. He did not
know where the hon. gentleman got his authority for that
statement. [Mr. Bright--I quoted from Mr. Kaye.] He
(Sir J. Hogg) was glad of that interruption, for but for
that it might have escaped him to expose a want of can-
dour in the hon. gentleman, and to have shown that he
had been furnished with scraps, and had not seen the book
itself. What would the house say when he stated that the
hon. gentleman, in alluding to Mr. Tucker's minute, in
connexion with which he quoted from Mr. Kaye, that Mr.
Kaye was not referring to double government in this coun-
try, but to the double government at Calcutta in 1772. Mr.
Kaye eloquently pourtrayed the evils of that double govern-
ment, and concluded with the paragraph which the hon.
gentleman had read, in which Mr. Kaye was speaking of
the double government of 1779, Mr. Kaye being one of the
strongest advocates of the double government in this
country.
Mr. BRIGHT explained that he showed that Mr. Kaye
referred to the double government in Bengal as a sham and
an imposture, and in the next sentence, when he quoted
Mr. Tucker's minute, he referred to the Board of Control
and the Court of Directors, and said it was a mystery
which eluded and deluded the public ; and he (Mr. Bright)
said that Mr. Kaye had expressed the same opinion of the
double government which existed 60 years ago as he (Mr.
Bright) had of the double government now.
Sir J. W. HOGG—The hon. gentleman had quoted such
strong expressions from Mr. Kaye, and being familiar with
the book, it struck him as strange, and he referred to the
passages which preceded the extract, and found that they
stated in effect " that in 1775, after the revenues of the
Indian territories became ours, policy compelled Clive to
carry on the government in the name of the Subbadar in
order to conciliaty foreign powers." Clive's policy was to
have the name of the Subbadar as a cloak lest foreign powers
should be offended, but it led to confusion and oppression,
and the system was denounced by Mr. Kaye; but that gen-
tleman ought not to have been brought forward as an autho
rity against the double government, when his whole work
was in favour of that form of government. The hon. gen-
tleman said he coupled that statement with Mr. Tucker's
minute. But that minute did not relate to the question of
a double government. Mr. Tucker was the staunchest ad-
vocate of the double government, and he wanted to extend
it further than now. It was true he complained that the
President of the Board of Control could send an order to
the India House to be sighed by the secret committee, and
he said that, as the President of the Board of Control did
this, a seal would do as well, and he spoke of the indignity
of being compelled to sign orders of which he might not
approve, and the purport of which he did not know. But
Mr. Tucker, neither in the words of his minute, nor on any
occasion, used any expression against the double govern-
ment, or intended any reprobation of it in the minute read
by the hon. gentleman. It was said that the Court of
Directors was a sham, and that it had neither power nor
authority. He (Sir J. Hogg) would state boldly and
broadly that under the existing system the practical go-
vernment of India rested with the Court of Directors.
Every measure originated, and must originate, with the
Court of Directors. Divided as it was into three separate
committees, every measure passed through a committee,
where it was investigated, and then was considered by the
court, after which it went to the President of the Board
of Control, who had power to alter it. But he could not
make alterations capriciously, but must state his reasons
for any alteration in writing. Was not that a restraint on
the President of the Board of Control, to prevent the pos-
sibility of the least alteration, unless it was such as would
meet with support from the house and the country ? Of
all the dispatches that finally passed the Court of Directors
not five per cent. were altered by the President of the
Board of Control, and those alterations were chiefly verbal.
It was true that in what wore called " P. C." dispatches,
or those on which there had been previous communica-
tions, the alterations were more frequent, perhaps some
fifty per cent. The body which regulated the foreign
affairs of a state must necessarily have paramount control
and must operate secretly ; that was the case in regard to
this country ;. and that was the case in India. The hon.
gentleman ought to know that the duties of the secret
committee were confined to questions of peace and war,
and to questions of treaties. Parliament had seen that it
was unfit to intrust a body of twenty-four gentlemen with
such matters, those being matters essentially requiring dis-
patch and secrecy with a view to the public safety. To have
any other system than that which prevailed would be the
cause of the greatest embarrassment to her Majesty's Go-
vernment, and would conduce to a confusion palpably op-
posed to the public interests. The great benefit—and here
he was putting the question upon the broadest and highest
grounds—arising from the double government of India was
this, that it kept the government of India free from poli-
tical bias. (Hear, hear.) By a double government alone
could such a result be accomplished ; of that he was satis-
fied. Was there any other portion of the British do-
minions governed without political bias ? God knew that
imputations in plenty had been east upon the directors,
and this was an imputation which had never been c•tst
tioned. that when upon them. Right or wrong in their policy, their policy
elected by Itvh
4.i.oveAr,,been guided by political feeling or party friend-
nineteen out oef ttl7entY.
instance out of many,
Sir Robert Peel, WT. it might be men-
en Lord Ellenborough was unanimously re-
elected
some extent weak four directors, it was a fact that
Lord Ellonborou ()so Government was undoubtedly to
gh
bg:: gentlemen were stanch supporters of
by that recal. The authority of
government. oebtilveelord had spoken of the Court of
Thcaotile been referred to against a double
Directors as a
noble lord almost individualised. menabalY' and,
indeed, he had
contempt. That, illaa
in terms of the greatest
said that they had

neither power nor influence ; that they were a mere politi-
cal fiction. The noble lord, in fact, made an exception to
prove his rule : he said that there were only three or four of
the directors at all competent for the discharge of their
important duties. On a subject like this he (Sir J. Hogg)
had nothing to retaliate. He had nothing to say of Lord
Ellenborough but that, officially and privately, he knew
that his lordship possessed, and had long possessed, an ex-
traordinary knowledge of Indian affairs. He knew his
lordship to be a man of great talent and ability ; and he
deeply regretted that such a man should have permitted a
spirit of personal malice to affect so strongly his speeches,
as it affected the evidence he gave to the committee. But,
then, this was the evidence of the recalled Governor-Gene-
ral ; and in opposition to it there was to be offered the
evidence of Lord Ellenborough before he was appointed
Governor-General. [The hon. baronet proceeded to quote
the opinion given by Lord Ellenborough in 1833, in which
he spoke in high terms of the then constitution, general
character, and working of the Court of Directors, and ob-
jected to any change.] Well, this was the answer to the
hon. gentleman's (Mr. Bright's) sneers about the directory
consisting of merely of bankers and brewers. (Hear, hear.)
Bankers and brewers ! He would have been astonished at
any member of that house sneering at bankers and brewers;
but such a sneer came with the least grace from the hon.
member for Manchester. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) The
directors were also told that their patronage had been
abused. His answer was a reference to Lord Ellenborough's
opinion in 1833, Lord Ellenborough having then declared
that the patronage of the directors was most equally dis-
tributed. But he would not stop there :he would, on
this occasion, reply to the general attacks which had been
made on this point, and, among others, he would include
the allegations of Captain Macgregor's pamphlet. He held
in his hand a return laid before the committee • he would
refer to no documents which had not been laid before the
committee ; every hon. member could go to the original
source for his documents ; but he would like to know
where they were to hunt for the documents of the hon.
member for Manchester ? This was a return of the results
of the military patronage, and from this it appeared that
only one-third of the whole military patronage of India
went to the sons of civil and military servants. As to the
civil patronage, and that was what really was valuable,
the figures were just as conclusive in refutation of the po-
sition of the hon. member for Manchester. There had
been 688 civil appointments since 1833 ; he took this from
the records of the India-house—and of these there had been
given among the sons and godsons, nephews, and the rela-
tives of the wives of the directors, 159; to the sons of mili-
tary servants, 260 ; and the residue, 269, had been given
generally and indifferently among the members of society.
This he thought was a complete answer to the charge of
unfair distribution of patronage. The hon. member for
Manchester had also referred a good deal to the vast emolu-
ments of the civil service. He held in his hand an abstract
on this point, and he would tell the house the averages.
The average emoluments on 5 years' service, 4701. per an-
num. On 5 years and not exceeding 10, 9111. Exceeding
10 years and not exceeding 15, 1,535/. • and above 15 years,
2,8451. Considering the education and expense involved in
the preparation for this service; considering also the ability
and the integrity and the devotion which characterised
the service, and taking into account the absence from their
native country, which attended the service, he contended
that these emoluments were on the whole inferior to the
corresponding emoluments to the corresponding stations in
this country. (Hear, hear.) Undoubtedly, however, this
was a question of results. If the system had not worked
well there was no use theorising about the constitution.
He maintained that the result justified the system, and in
proof of that, without confusing the house by imitating the
hon. member for Manchester, and entering into minute de-
tails, he would produce some very satisfactory figures.
There had been a great accession of territory since 1833.
The area of that accession amounted to 267,013 square
miles ; consequently, a population of 8,572,605. He gave
that area and population, because he wished to an-
ticipate the objection that all the increased revenue
had arisen from increased territory. In 1834 the gross
revenue was 18,699,6771. In 1851 the gross, revenue was
27,625,3601., showing an increase of nearly 9,000,000/.
How much of that 9,000,0001. arose from the contributions
of new territory ? Why, no less than 2,000,000/. ; but he
Would take the aggregate at 2,000,0001., and he would then
have to account how and whence the increased 7,000,000/.
was derived. But it might be said that the increased re-
venue was got from increased taxation. No such thing,
however. Many taxes, since 1833, had been entirely-
abolished ; and a large number had been considerably re-
duced. The export duty hail been removed from cotton,
coffee, and other materials ; and the transit duties, which
used to be a large item in the accounts, had been entirely
done away with. Then, the salt tax had been reduced 25
per cent. ; and thus it was shown that increased revenue
had gone on with decreased taxation. (Hear.) Well, if
this was so, if they were to take in India the tests applied
to every other country, was he not justified in concluding
that India had prospered? (Hear, hear.) There were,
however, other tests not to be overlooked. The house had,
heard a good deal of declamation to the effect that
the land in India was going out of cultivation ; that the
land was falling back into jungle. What were the facts?
In the North Western provinces of Madras, and in Bengal,
the revenue from the land had been, in 1833, 9,115,412/. ;
and in 1851, it was 12,075,479/. ; showing an increase of
revenue from the same territory of 2,960,0671. The increase
of revenue from opium, in the same period, was 2,305,6011.;
from salt, 85,3781.; from customs, 206,428/. ; making alto-
gether an increase of 5,537,474/. ; leaving an increase 'of
revenue derived from other sources of 1,442,526/. ; which
made up the sum of 7,000,0001., to which he had referred.
After such facts as these, ought the house to hear any more
of the misery, and destitution, and backwardness of India?
(Hear, hear.) It might be said all this was artificial pros-
perity, that there had been a starving people notwith-
standing the flourishing revenue. He would take the
tests illustrating that point. Take the imports into
India : In 1831-5, 6,154,129/. ; in 1849-50, 13,696,636/.
He would like to know in what other part of the globe
such a progress was to be traced. Then, the exports :
in 1831-5, 8,188,161/. ' in 1819-50, 18,283,543/. ; being
an increase of 10,000,0001. in twenty years. This was as-
, tounding ; the figures exceeded anything he could have
conceived. (Hear, hear.) And this had all been accom-
plished by India herself, and by the policy of the Court of
directors • not only without the aid of the English Govern-
ment and of the English Parliament, but in spite of obsta-
cles presented by Parliament. (Hear, hear.) Year after
year, for long years, the East India Company had petitioned
that house in vain to do justice to India by the removal of
discriminating duties. Cotton goods, fot instance, had
gone to India on a duty of 5 per cent. from this country ;
but a duty of 62 per cent. was levied, as a prohibition,
against Indian manufactures (Hear, hear.) In vain, for
years, had the East India Company demanded a fair and
equitable commercial tariff from this country in regard to
sugar and to rum. Only the other day had they got those
duties equalised ; and what had been the results ? In 1835,
the year before the duty was equalised, 107,476 cwts. of
sugar were imported from India into Great Britain. What
was the average imports into this country from India in
1851-2? 1,390,188 cwt. If they had had that advantage
a long time back they would have had a corresponding in-
crease ; but they (the House of Commons) kept it back.
Again, there was the average importation of rum before
the equalisation 128,000 gallons. Since the equalisation it
had been 686,000 gallons. He left out the odd figures. He
believed his right hon. friend gave them the increase of
cotton. Well, now, in 1806, during the time of the mo-
nopoly of the calumniated body of which he had the hon-
our of being a member, in 1806 the exports from India
amounted to 1,460,0001. in value ; and in 1814, the duty
being then 62i per cent., there were imported into Great
Britain from India 967,652 pieces of calico and muslin.
With silks and taffitas he would not trouble the house, but
the increase was equal. He remembered on a former oc-
casion, when presenting one of the petitions in that house
which were presented in vain, he heard an account of the
misery and desolation in provinces in which the people and
their fathers before them had maintained themselves by
their industry in the manufacture of cotton, and from the
exercise of which they had been driven, not by competition,
for he admitted that steam power in this country would
have that result ; but he heard of the misery and desola-
tion of provinces, particularly in the Deccan. And observe
it was not in India as it was in this country, where even a
handloom weaver, if he lost employment as aweaver, could
turn his attention to something else. Not so in India. In
that country a trade descended from father to son for hun-
dreds of years. Trades were mixed up with religion ; and
if they took a trade from a man, they took from him that
by which alone he got his living, and desolation through-
out these provinces was the melancholy result. They then
never heard of the lamentation ; there was none of the
philanthrophy which now prevailed. Well, now, observe
the case with India. Had England prospered ? England
had not equally advanced with India. In 1814, which was
the first year of what, as regarded India, was nicknamed
free trade, when everything from England could go to India
and nothing from India could come to England—(hear,
hear, and laughter)—the British cotton manufacturers
erported to the East Indies amounted to 109,4871. ; in
1849-50, the last year he had, they had increased to
4,421,9201. Had Manchester any reason to complain ?
Well, had the shipowners any reason to complain ? In•
1834-5 the British shipping amounted to 220 vessels,
amounting to 108,870 tons. In 1849-50 the vessels had
increased to 425, and the tonnage to 252,153. Both the
number of vessels and the amount of tonnage had almost,
without a fraction, doubled in the twenty years. Where
was that to be equalled ? He should like any gentleman to
name any other part of the world where the increase had
been as great. Even America, where the hon. member for
Manchester had carried his imagination,' had not increased
equally. The hon. gentleman could not help referring to
America. " Oh," said the hon. member, "if India had
fallen into the hands of America how happy would it have
been." Well, he would tell the hon. gentleman the result.
The result would have been that the whole people of India
would have been slaves. Slavery had been abolished by
British rule.
Mr. BRIGHT rose and attempted to speak, but his voice
was drowned amid loud cries of ` Order, order."
Bi,e J. W. HOGG proceeded. He did not mean to say
that the hon. gentleman wished India to be under America,
but the hon. gentleman said if India had been under Ame-
rica there would have been prosperity there which did not
exist now.
Mr. BRIGHT—Traversed b roads. y
Sir J. W. HOGG said he did not want to have a discus-
phrases. The point of the hon. gentleman, if
he had about
daonuyt point, was that India would have been more
prosperous under the Americans. He (Sir J. W. Hogg)
wanted to show- that India would not have been better
he said that perhaps they would not
aaneol!shed, and slavery was now abolished.
under
have
had America,
slavery
Well, he bad given ti:ern the exports from Great Britain,
and he would now give them the exports from India. In
1834-5 they amounted to 2,262,381/., in 1849-50 t 07,578,980/.,
an increase from two mil iOns to seven, omitting the odd
figures, upwards of three times the amount. That showed
how hard it was to please the right hon. gentleman. The
hon. member said there had been a great increase of ex-
ports, but that the whole or the greater portion of the in-
crease consisted of cotton goods. That 'was a funny com-
tpeldaitnhtatto
icome
ef rvoemr
yhhi
rme ,a
tbhu t
in ho
which( l r
h;
eWh
0.
eH. ogg
egn)
ta cll e
ai it-
made that complaint he assigned a reason for it. He said
cotton goods were very cheap, and that the little the native
required for his garment was purchased for a trifle, and
Manchester could send it cheap. He (Sir J. W. Hogg) did
not complain of that, but when that was explained the hon.
gentleman still was not satisfied, and never would be.
(Cheers.) He believed in his conscience if anybody could
inflict on the hon. gentleman the feeling of satisfaction and
contentment he would be the cleverest man in existence.
The hon. member could 'not make any more about imports
‘tsheoeuwghhtatthlev e Hsoeunsde to'f
tahnedßexrapzoiritss.„ IIeto d(isair bd.u.t
Wh (3. sititiedg,gi
Commons and the member for Manchester might bo satis-
fied if they dealt with the finances of India, and the finances
of this country, and they might leave the Brazils to settle
their own affairs themselves. He hail now told them
shortly and clearly the result of their finances, without
going into detail. He had got the details. but he had given
the result during 20 years. The next thing was what was
their state in 1850-1. At the very time when there was
every temptation to put a good face on it, and they. had a
great anxiety as well as interest to make their affairs ap-
pear well, what was the sketch estimate of 1851-2 ? There
was a deficit, but the result was a surplus of half a million