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

THE INDIAN COMMITTEE.

Mr. HINDLEY wished to ask the President of the
Board or Control, whether it is the intention of the
Government, in the event of the passing of the India
Bill that the committee on India shall be terminated,
or whether they shall be continued until the committee
agree to a final report.
Sir C. WOOD said he had no intention to interrupt
the proceedings of the committee ?

THE INDIA BILL.—(ADJOURNED DEBATE.)
The motion for reading the order of the day having been
put and agreed to, this debate was resumed by
Mr. COBDEN, who said ho should probably not have
addressed the house, had ho not formed part of the com-
mittee ; and he wished to offer an observation on the ques-
tion asked by Mr. Hindley. Allusion had been made to
the sittings of the committee during the last Parliament.
They might speak of the last Parliament as they did of the
long Parliament—as something passed and gone, and mere
matter of history; and the conduct of that committee
ought not to be cited as any authority in that house. It
was such as to disentitle them to all confidence. That
committee was appointed to inquire into the important
question of the government of India. It divided its in-
quiry into eight heads, the first being the machinery by
which the government of India was carried on. After
examining 18 witnesses on that head, every one of whom
had been either an official in the employment of the Court
of Directors or the Board of Control, or had been in some
manner connected with one or other of those services, the
committee came to a kind of qualified resolution, approv-
ing of the conduct of the Government of India. At some
future time, when some dusky agitator on the banks of the
Ganges should want to find a grievance with which to
appeal to a Hindoo [population as against the conduct of
the Government of India, he would cite that fact, and it
would be a most potent one to raise their indignation ; for
a more unfair proceeding was never committed by any tri-
bunal calling itself impartial. Two members voted
against that resolution, and they were in a minority of two.
With regard to the committee of this year, before they had
proceeded half through the inquiry they had laid down
for themselves it was announced in that house that the
Government measure for the government of India was
preparing. From that time he had not attended that com-
mittee. No member of the house was more assiduous than
himself in attending committees ; but from the moment
that announcement was made, he considered that the
question had passed out of the hands of the committee.
He saw no good they could do in collecting facts and in-
formation for the government of India, seeing that they
were generally obtained from persons who came from
India, or who had been employed there, and who were
more accessible to the Indian authorities. The whole case
was prejudged ; they had brought in their verdict without
going through the ordeal of a trial ; and he must decline,
unless by the Speaker's peremptory command, or at the
order of the house, attending any more to sanction such a
proceeding. (Hear.) They were now called on to vote for
an amendment which virtually postponed the whole ques-
tion for two years, leaving in the interim the government
of India as it was. If that were decided affirmatively,
he should be happy to return to his duties in the com-
mittee, and give his constant attention to the inquiry,
which would then be of great importance in deciding
the question. (Hear, hear.) He did not at all regard
this in the light of a party question. (Hear, hear.)
It had been imputed to the people of Manchester,
who had certainly given interest and prominence
to the question, that they had taken rather too material
a view of the subject, and had looked at is as a question
affecting too much the interests of Lancashire. If that were
true, at all events it could not be said to have been taken
up in a political party spirit. So far as ho was acquainted
with the state of parties in Lancashire and Yorkshire, he
believed they were generally in favour of postponement,
with a view to further inquiry. (Hear.) More inquiry
was wanted. The question before them was the whole go-
vernment of India ; and the problem to solve was, whe-
ther they should have what was called a single or a double
government. In discussing that question he was met with
this difficulty—he did not see and could not understand
that it was a double government. Ho had sought in vain
to find what power the Court of Directors had to entitle
them to be called a government at all. Looking through
the act of 1834 to find what irrespon.ibio power was given
to them, he found they had none whatever, except the dis-
posal of the patronage. Tho act left the whole controlling
power to the board of commissioners for managing the
affairs of India ; therefore he looked upon the Court of Di-
rectors, not as a government, but as nothing but as a screen,
behind which the real government was hid. It was
because he wished to get rid of that screen, and that the
real government might stand before the house and the
world in its proper character, and take upon its shoulders
the responsibility of the misgovernment of India—if there
were any—that he wanted to have this matter simplified,
and do away with the double government—i.e., to bring
into one office the government of India. (Hear, hear.)
There had been much misapprehension with regard to this
double government. Till the last year or two he did not
believe anybody understood it at all. Lord Hardinge spoke
of it as a mystery, and said it was looked upon as a mystery
in India • and he mentioned the instance of an officer of
rank in India, who had written an indignant letter to the
President of the Board of Control in reference to a commu-
nication of the secret committee of the Court of Directors,
expressing his indignation at the conduct of that com-
mittee• and he was only restrained from sending it, by
Lord Hardinge tolling him that the secret committee was
the President of the Board of Control himself. (Hear,
hoar.) Those who were most authoritative in that
house on the question of double government, when
pressed in examination before the committee, showed that
they had never understood what the meaning of double
government was. Ono gentleman who had been often
cited (Mr. Marshman, the conductor of the Friend of
India, a strong advocate of " things as they are,") when
fairly probed and pushed on the subject, showed that he,
who was instructing them all, and sending pamphlets to
all the members of the Legislature, had very little funda-
mental knowledge of what this Government was. He
was asked—" In seeking to acquaint yourself with the
form of government for India, you would resort exclu-
sively to the act of Parliament under which the present
government of India is constituted ?—Yes. Do you find
that by this act of Parliament any discretionary powers
are vested in the Court of Directors, except with reference
to the disposal of the patronages ?—I should think they
are responsible to the Board of Control. Admitting that
the Court of Directors have no uncontrolled power in the
government of India, how can you make them responsible
either to Parliament or to the people of India ?—Yet it
was the intention of the act to confer certain powers upon
them, and to give a control over the exercise of those
powers to the Board of Control. You admit that unless a
party has power intrusted it, it cannot be responsible for
the exercise of its power ?—No, I can, therefore, only say
that they are responsible for the exercise of all the powers
given to them in that act. You still say that this act was
intended to vest a certain power in the East India Com-
pany ?—There must have been some object in view in
creating the present Government of the East India Com:

pany. *
You say you believe that the intention of Parliament
was to give certain powers to the East India Company ;
having admitted that no such powers exist except in the
disposal of patronage, you would admit that, if Parlia-
ment had such object, it has failed to accomplish it ?
That very much depends upon the working of the sys-
tem. Although Parliament may have exempted nothing
from the control of the President of the Board of Control,
yet it is certain that the Court of Directors were intended
to be a body employed in the administration of the affairs
of India. To the extent of the disposal of patronage ?
Not merely to the extent of the disposal of the patronage,
because the patronage of the Court of Directors ponsists
only in appointment to service, and not in appointment to
office. The great patronage lays in the hands of the Go-
vernor-General and the governors of the various presiden-
cies. All the patronage which the Court has to dispose of
is the appointment to writerships and cadetships. Will you
explain to the committee what power the Court of Direc-
tors have under this Charter Act beyond the disposal of the
patronage ?—I cannot exactly speak to that, because I have
not seen the interior working of the system of either the
Court of Directors or the Board of Control. I only wish
for an answer founded upon this Act of Parliament for the
government of India ?—All I can say is, if this Act of Par-
liament was intended to give them' no power whatever,
except the disposal of patronage, it could not be considered
an act for vesting the administration of affairs in the hands
of the East India Company." Ho admitted that if there
was no power vested in the Court of Directors but the dis-
posal of the patronage, that it was no government at all ;
and that was all the power they possessed. The evil of
this mystery was, that where the responsibility of the
government existed could hardly be pointed out by any in-
telligent person. (Hear, hear.) There could be nothing
worse than mystery in the forms and proceedings of au
administration except it were mystery as to the source
whence those proceedings emanated. We had been lately
simplifying our courts of law, and getting rid of fictitious
forms of proceeding :we had abolished John Doe" and
" Richard Roe." (Hear.) Here was " John Doe" and
"Richard Roe" in the form of an Indian government;
and for whose benefit ? (Hear, hear.) Was it for the be-
nefit of the people of India ? Upon that he would cite
the authority of a gentleman who was brought before the
committee by the Court of Directors, who had filled very
high offices in India, and was destined probably
.to fill
higher—certainly one of the most remarkable officers in the
civil service—Mr. Halliday. Ho was almost in the high-
est civil employment in India ; and he spoke in the face
and presence of the Court of Directors, his masters and
employers. Ho had used the expression, that the charter
being for 20 years, was considered by the natives of India
as farming them out for that period. (Hear, hear.) He
was asked,—" You used the expression farming the go-
vernment.' Do you believe the people of India think the
government of India is fanned to the Company in the
same sense that the taxes were farmed at the period ;Ton
allude to ? They use precisely the same word in speaking
of the renewal of the charter. .`hey will talk with you as
to the probability of the fjarch,' or `farm,' being renewe
and, as far as flow, they have no other tam to express
.4444,4'4-laity a their lau•
it, that not merely through Ul9

i'll•nAk, '"