The Sun.
London, England, 1853-06-25 00:00:00

forth in those petitions were well founded or otherwiv,
unless they had before them the testimony of native wit-
nesses? Looking at the bill brought forward by the Go-
vernment, he contended, if there was one thing more than
another calculated to produce and keep up agitation and
disquiet among the people of India, it was the hanging of
a provisional measure of that kind over their heads, accom-
panied by the understanding that it was to be altered and
amended as time and circumstances might require. (Hear,
hear.) He was against proceeding with a bill of that de-
scription until, according to the past practice of the house,
every party had had an opportunity of being heard who
ought to be heard. For those reasons chiefly it was his
intention to support the amendment of the noble lord
opposite (Lord Stanley). We could never have raised
India to its present position by conquest only, but for the
aid of the industry and capital furnished by a commercial
company begun a century aeo. The honourable gentle-
man the member for Kidderminster (Mr. Lowe) stated
ou the previous night that the Government was now pro-
ceeding in a course agreeable to precedent. But what wera
the facts ? The heads of the present bill were only submit-
ted by the Government to the Court of Directors on the Ist
June last ; whereas on the last reatewal of tha charter, in
1833, the cheme of legislation- of the Government c-f that
day had been under the consideraticia of " the et:mit-4' from
October, 1830, and the bill itself was submitted to the Court
of Directors in March of the following vear Wi sti those
facts before him, he thought he was perfectly warranted in
stating that sufficient time had not been given to do just-c:
to the matter under consideration. His own opinion was
that one great defect of the existing system was that none : f
the natives of India were included in the Legislative Council.
Did hon. gentlemen believe that India was to continue fo:
ever, as how, uncle; the management of a few hundred
Europeans, and that in the administration of its affairs we
were not to take advant;.gs of the existing means of civili-
sation? The complaint he had to make was, that during
the last 20 years the resources of India had been wastol,
and wasted in uncalled-fer wars, which would never have
been carried out if the Court of Directors hail had that power
and control which the act of 1833 was intended to leave in
their hands. In 1833 the home and foreign debt amounted
to 38,000,0001., but through the persevering exertions of
the directors from year to year, it was reduced in 1839 to
31,000,0001. Then came the Affghan war, and their expen-
diture exceeded their receipts. There were also the wars
in Scinde and the Punjaub. Would the house believe that
the enormous sum of 28,737,0001. had been spent on those
three wars alone, all of which had happened since the last
renewal of the charter ? The question might be asked,
who caused the wars? He contended that it was more a
European than an Indian question ; and that it was di-
rected by a Secretary of State here in conjunction with
the Board of Control. What he wanted was that they
should have a security against the continuance of such pro-
ceedings. If there was, as he was anxious there should be,
a responsible Minister for India, such a Minister ought to
have a council to consult and advise with, and there could
bone. better council than a Court of Directors, properly
constituted. Ho considered that they 4ht to make the
4 1
Court of Directors More efficient, "et way to do that
was to prevent any man entering ths, court who had ;any
other business to occupy his attention, and to infuse into it-ss
a larger proportion of members conversant with the affairs
of India. With respect to the question of the double go-
vernment, he wished to see the administration of India as it
now was carried on by the Court of Directors—called by the
name of a council, if they pleased—to see that system con-
tinued, improved, and perpetuated. - He could not believe
that the Government would have been carried on, or raised
to its present extraordinary position of power and import.
ance, if they had not had that body appointing its own
servants, and taking care of, and controlling, the while
revenue of the country. The present bill itisgraced the
' directors, for it positively placed them under the clerks
whose masters they were. He objected to leaving the
power in the President of the Board of Control of doing
the evil he bad hitherto clone without any check, and with-
out any means of Parliament knowing when important
measures were taken by him. At present, according to the
• Minister, no one could tell where responsibility really
rested. One said it was in the Board of Control ; another
in the directors • whilst a third said it was in India. Parlia-
ment ought to know where lay the responsibility ; and for
effecting this object he suggested that the secret committee
should be obliged to keep minutes of their proceedings. He
objected to the proposed alterations in the distribution of
patronage, on the ground that it had not been abused, as
was shown by the efficiency of the public servants in India.
On these several grounds he entreated the house not to be
led away by hasty or rash proposals, but to insist that the
inquiry now proceeding should be closed before they legis-
lated.
- -•

-------
Mr. MACAULAY— I shall vote for the second reading
of this bill. But even if I thought I could not vote for it,
I should not deem it right to give my vote for the amend-
ment proposed by the noble lord. That amendment does
not appear to me to have been very greatly supported by
the arguments in the speech of my honourable friend (Mr.
Hume). He at least cannot plead that he has not had suf-
ficient information before him to enable him to decide on
this question. He has made up his mind, not only that
the present bill is a bad bill, but he has made up his mind
also upon the most minute details of that plan of govern-
ment which he himself recommends. He has sketched out
the complete plan of another bill, altering the relations
between the Board of Control and the Board of Directors,
and disposing of the patronage of India in a manner cer-
tainly very different fienn the manner proposed by this
bill. Now, that he should, after having given us a com-
plete sketch of another plan for the government of India,
have called upon us to pass a resolution asserting that the
information is not accessible which will alone enable us to
legislate for India, does appear to me, I confess, so strange
as to be almost improbable. (Hear.) Nor can I agree
with the noble lord opposite in condemning this bill upon
the ground that it changes the existing system, and yet
is not final. (Hear, hear). The noble lord has condemned
the bill, for being what any bill proposed for the
government of India, either this year or next year, or
three years hence, or ten years hence, must necessarily be.
such a bill ought to make alterations, and yet it ought, not
to be final. The bill which we pass—be it what it may—
ought to be a large yet cautious step iu the path of pro-
gress. That which we have a right to ask nom the Go-
vernment is not a bill which should leave everything that
exs br, uriVrlM-va ik tar ,-;41-
reforms that no other Reform hill wouhl ever hereafter be
necessary—it is a bill that shall ietroduce improvements
and leave us free ',gents to effect future improvements ; •
and such a bill has been proposed by. the right hon.
baronet the President of the Board of Control. (Hear.)
Ono reason which, perhaps, leads me to look on this bill
more favourably than some gentlemen for whose ability I
have great respect may be this—that the parts of the bill
which to them seem the most important are precisely
those which, to me, seem least important. We have heard
very much—we have read very much, about the changes
which it is proposed to make in the home Government.
That the home government ought to be constitued with
care, that it should be as well constituted as possible, is
perfectly true; but I do not conceive that the points in
dispute touching the constitution of the home Government
are by any means the most important points we have to
decide. (Hoar, hear.) The truth is, that vicinity, as wo
well know, acts on the mind as it does on the eye. A
small object near will hide a large object at a distance.
India is a great way off, but we all know the India-
house ; and India-house politics may hide from some,
and cause more to see imperfectly, Indian politics. We
all know something about India-house politics. A man
must have led a very secluded life indeed who has not coma
across a canvass for a seat in tke direction. (A laugh.) I
think that many men would find it very difficult to state
whether the people of the Mysore or of the Nizam's
territory aro Mahomedans or Ilindoos, or to explain the
difference between the Ryotwar and Zemiudary settle-
ments, who, nevertheless, would take exceeding interest.
in the quosticu who will be the person next elected direc-
tor. (Hear.) If not stockholders ourselves, at all events
we may he asked to speak to another gentleman to ask
him to speak to a lady to ask her to speak to a proprietor
to secure the promise of his vote, if not for this or the
next time, at least for the time after. (Laughter, and
Hear.) When a director is elected—he having solicited us
for our " vote and interest" during his canvass—we begin
to solicit him for writerships. Some of us he obliges and
some he disobliges ' • but it is on account of these circum-
stances that we all know something of the home Govern-
ment—we watch all its operation, and therefore the pro-
posed change excites a strong feeling, and has given rise to
a controversy which really seems to me to be altogether
disproportionate to the magnitude of the subject. (Hear.)
For what, after all—when We come to examine it—is the
vague idea entertained about the home Government ?
Much has been said apinst a double government, and yet,
when we come to examine any plan which may be pro-
posed by any gentleman, we always find that it always
does propose a plan which deserves the name of double
government exactly as much as that contained in this bill..
No human being proposes that the Crown should have
nothing to do with the government of India. No human
being proposes that dominions containing a population
more than half as large as that of Europe, and where a
greater military force is kept up than in all the rest of the
Queen's territories, should bo placed under an authority
distinct from that which governs the rest of the British
empire. But, if you have the Indian Government under
the control of the Crown, the Minister for India must go
out of office with the other Ministers of the Crown—that
is to say, he must come in and go out on grounds which
have nothing whatever to do with the merits or demerits
of Indian administration.e In fact, since the Board of
Control began to exist in 1784, I believe no single instance
can be found of a President of the Board of Control taking
or leaving office on account of any difference of opinion on
Indian affairs. Ono may have gone out on the question
of Catholic emancipation, and another because he would
not agree to a Bill of Pains and Penalties against Queen
Caroline, but the last President but one of the Board of
Control went out because his colleagues were in a minority
on a militia bill, and the last, because the Cabinet was in a
minority on their budget. During the last quarter of a
century there have been ten changes in the Board of Control
—that is to say, the average time during which the Indian
Minister has held office is about two years and a half. When
we consider the nature of India—the vast extent and num-
, her of the various subjects which demand attention, andthe
small amount of attention which those subjects generally
receive from the English public, whose peculiar duty it is
not to study them—you must be forced to admit that the
Minister for India often wants the experience it is
desirable he should possess, and then it seems to me
necessarily to follow that you must give him some
more permanent body, which shall, to a certain degree,
operate as a check. If this be admitted—and no person, I
think, will deny it—then I say you have a double govern.
meet. (Hear.) It seems to me idle to say it is a double
government if the Crown appoints the Minister and the
proprietors elect the council ; but that it is not double go-
vernment if the Crown should appoint both Minister and
council. Surely it is just as much double government as if
the Minister holds office by one tenure and the Council by
another. (Hear, hear.) You will have the same incon-
venience whether the council be appointed by the Crown
or by the Court of Directors. It is utterly impossible to
attach to any Minister a council or body of men whose
business it is to look on—to restrain and advise him—it is
utterly impossible to give any Minister such a council with-
out at the same time relieving him to a certain extent from
his responsibility, and without in some degree causing
delay in the transactions of the department. It seems to
me, however, that under the plan of the Governmenillthere
will be found rather a better council to assist the Minister
than we have had before. I thick it a great advantage
that it is a smaller council, and that I think will, on the
whole, cause its proceedings to be marked with as-re vigour
and ability. I accept it as an improvement, but still Ido
not conceive that the improved constitution of this council
is to settle the government of India. I hear one hon. gen-
tleman say that the Board of Control really governs India ;
while another says that that is not so, but that the Board
of Directors sre the governors of that empire. Now, I
conceive it to be very incorrect to say that either the Board
of Control or the Board of Directors really exercises the
chief authority in this respect. India is, and must be,