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

sa matterthat of
wethis;
were
rkindigh
right
t n. oppose the Government, and he
a
legislating at once. What then,
was the opinion of Sir John Hobhouse, being connected
with the government of British India ? What is the opi-
nion of Lord Panmure, who, though connected with it for
a shorter time, is still conversant with its affa'T s. That
opinion against delay of Governors-General of
opinion was. stated to the house explicitly. You have,
of the Board of Control—you have
then ,a the
of
Presidents
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
in 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 wo 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 thorn. (Hear, hear.) Let
me intreat of you to consider the position of the Govern-
ment which makes this proposition. If we had consulted
our easo—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 ? We 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 matter has been
called before the committee, and has been already examined.
You have already three Governors-General—you have
Lord Ellenborough, Lord Harding°, 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 for judging of that;
he hesitates, and it cannot be said his evidence goes further.
(Hear, hoar.) But again, to try the tree by its fruits.
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 Wales. (Hear, hear.) These two generations sus-
tained the honoar 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 von have had men adminis-
tering the government of millions of subjects; you have
had them 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. Ilerries) 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 British policy,
it was Indian necessity that produced those wars. (Hear.)
Ono and 'all were undertaken on the spot from a sense of
coming danger overriding the wishes of the men thomselve ;
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. (Hear.) 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 no.
cessity, with an empire such as that which we pos•
suss in India, that notwithstanding all our self-deny.
ing ordinances hert2,.. notwithstanding the fixed inten.

ticin on 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
hour to exist on that great and mighty continent. These
aro 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 with Burmah 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
wars me ask if single government would be a check to these
? The ease 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