The Sun.
London, England, 1853-07-01 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, JULY 1, 1853,

were regarded with all the consideration they deserved.
Well, Mr. Macaulay then said—
.' The plan suggested by the right hon. gentleman the
member for Montgomeryshire is, I think, the very worst
that I have ever heard. He would have directors nominated
every four years by the Crown. Is it not plain that these
directors would always be appointed from among the sup-
porters of the Ministry for the time being—that their situations
would depend on the permanence of that Ministry—that there-
fore all their power and patronage would be employed for
the purpose of propping that Ministry, and, in case of a
change, for the purpose of molesting those who might suc-
ceed to power—that they would be subservient while their
friends were in, and factious when their friends were out ?
How would Lord Grey's Ministry have been situated
if the whole body of directors had been nominated by
the Duke of Wellington in 1830 ? I mean no imputa-
tion on the Duke of Wellington. If the present Ministers
bad to nominate directors for four years, they would, I have
no doubt, nominate men who would give no small trouble to
the Duke of Wellington if he were to return to office. What
we want is a body independent of the Government, and no
more than independent ; not a tool of the Treasury, not a
tool of the opposition. No new plan which I have heard pro-
posed would give us such a body. The company, strange as
its constitution may be, is such a body."
(Cheers.) Well, sir, it is unnecessary for me to remind the
house of the particular arrangements by which the num-
bers of the Court of Directors are to be reduced. I advert
to it of course with reluctance from the presence of the
gentlemen who are members of that body, but the freedom
of discussion warrants the allusion. The Court of Directors
consists of 30 members. They are to meet and select from
their body 15 to be directors of the company. At first
there was an idea that the President of the Board of Con-
trol had dealt hardly with the Court of Directors. It was
considered a device on his part of so ruthless a character
that there was some public sense of indignation expressed
towards her Majesty's Ministers on that score; but after
considering this clause I entirely acquit her Majesty's Min-
isters of this imputation. I am sure the original idea of
this clause must have been formed in Leadenhall-street.
(Hear.) I know there is a very valuable body of papers
there—they have been examined by a friend of mine—in
the records of the Court of Directors, relating to a subject in
which the Indian Government greatly distinguished them-
selves, and that was putting down the system of Thuggee.
(Hear, and a laugh.) Now, a Thug is a person of very
gentlemanlike manners, even of fascinating manners (a
laugh);—he courts your acquaintance, dines with you,
drinks with you, smokes with you ;. not only does he share
your pastimes, but even your pursuits ; whatever you wish
done he is always ready to fulfil it ; he is the companion of
your life, and is possibly a member of the same direction
and of the same joint-stock company ; but the very moment
when he has gained your confidence, when yon are repos-
ing, as it were, on the bosom of friendship, the mission of
the Thug is fulfilled, and you cease to exist. (Laughter.)
I confess I shall be curious to see who are the fifteen
Thugs. (Laughter.) I want to know who will be the first
victim. Sometimes I fear it may be the venerable member
for London. (A. laugh.) I will not pursue this hypothetical
anticipation, but when we meet next session I think there
will be a thrill of curiosity and horror when certain hon.
gentlemen who are members of the first new Court of Di-
rectors enter this house. (A laugh.) And practically what
what will you gain by this process ? You are going to have
15 gentlemen of the old Court, to whom the Crown, in the
first instance, has permission to add three and ultimately
six. Now, the object is to secure a certain superiority of
knowledge of India and its necessities. Do you gain that ?
I looked this afternoon over the list of East India Direc-
tors. I took the 24 whose names are down, and I observed
the majority of them were gentlemen who had local and
official experience of India. More than one-half of the pre-
sent directors are men who have been eminent as lawyers,
as my hon. friend the member for Honiton, or men who
have had great experience in either the military or civil
service of the company ; so that at present, with this ex-
tremely criticised Court of Directors, you have a mass of
Indian experience and knowledge represented by more than
one-half of the members of the Court. But if the arrange-
ment contemplated by her Majesty's Ministers is
completed, you will only secure one-third of the members who-
possess that knowledge and information. It is perfectly
obvious, therefore, when the change you have projected
takes place, none of the 12 members of the company will
ever be elected with any regard to their Indian
experience;
they will always be men of Lombard-street—the directors
of insurance societies ; and remember, when a city director
is wanted, you go on 'Change to find him • there will be no
obligation on the proprietors to elect a' man of Indian
experience ; and the result of the change, therefore, will
be, as I have said, that instead of one-half or more than one-
half of the directors being men of Indian experience, you
will have under this new-fangled scheme only one-third.
How will this act ? Try it with the three new members
nominated by the Crown. For some time it may remain.
Probably the 15 best lives will remain in office, and you
are to have three men of consummate Indian experience
added to the Government. What do you gain by that ?
At this moment you have three, and more than three, equal
to any men probably the Government; with the greatest
anxiety and the most praiseworthy motives which I give
them credit for in this respect, could possibly select. I
might take my hon. friend the member for Honiton, twice
chairman, and a great authority in this house. tier Ma-
jesty's Ministers cannot suppose they will be able to select
a mon3 experienced man in Indian matters than my hon.
friend. Is it probable you will get a better man than Sir
R. Jenkins, or a man of more Eastern experience than Sir
H. Willock? 4(Hear.) Therefore, I say, by the very plan
you are now pursuing, if you wish to make it a council of
Indian experience, you are doing that which is most fatal
to anything pretending to be a council—losing the im-
portant element of independence. (Hear, hear.) The two
great elements of an Indian Council, whatever form it may
take, whether a Court of Directors or a Council, are inde-
pendence and the knowledge of the members, and you can
only obtain them by making the members permanent. For
those reasons, were there no others, if I were to choose be-
tween the existing system and that curious ono proposed
by her Majesty's Ministers, I would really prefer the ex-
isting one. (Hear, bear.) The existing system gives an
independence which is the first element in such a body,
and it secures apparently a great mass of Indian know-
ledge, probably at least half, if not more, of men of as
great experience.) as the Crown could probably obtain.
That is the great objection which I have to this plan of
the home government. It appears to me to possess all the
evils of the old system and none of its advantages.
(Hear, hear.) I must remit many objections to the prin-
ciple of the Lill, because I feel time is precious, and I am
bound to answer the defence set up to this bill by those
who have preceded me. There is one curious feature of
this debate,—not a single member has risen on either side
of the house to defend the bill of her Majesty's Ministers
except gentlemen in office—(hear, hear)—and what is the
worth of their defence I will proceed to ascertain. Re-
member this, there are particular gentlemen who will not
vote for the amendment ; but there is not one of those
who spoke and opposed the amendment who did not tell
you at 'She same time he entirely disapproved of the bill.
(Hear, hear.) That is a very remarkable circumstance.
The honourable baronet the member for the University of
Oxford is not going to support the amendment. He very
rarely does support any amendment of ours. (A laugh.)
But he looks upon the 'bill with a spirit of devout re-
probation ; and says he never saw a bill of which he
more entirely disapproved, and that he votes for the
second reading in order that in committee he may move
to strike out all the principal clauses of it. (Hear,
and a laugh.) Then there is the hon. member for Hun-
tingdon—and I always regret to differ from him ; he is not
going to support the amendment ; but he says he very
much disapproves of the bill. Then the hon. member for
Rochester, a great Indian authority—he seemed inclined
to support the amendment, but is not going to vote for it ;
but he entirely disapproves of the bill. (Hear, hear.)
Then there is my right hon. friend the member for Stam-
ford ; he is a very staunch opponent of the amendment ;
hut when he goes into committee he shall feel it is duty
to show you that the bill is one of the most pernicious
pieces of legislation that could be conceived. The cata-
logue is much longer, but I cannot proceed through such
a list, because I have men of mark before me to whom 1
must proceed. I said no hon. member had defended the
bill except those who were in office ; but there was one
right hon. gentleman who is not, but who ought to have
been in office, who defended it—he spoke not of his col-
leagues, but of his clients—(hear, hear)—but I appeal to
the house, who listened to him with that attention which
he always commands. whether they ever heard a more
agreeable speech or a more feeble defence. He laid it
down that the real government of India was in the Go-
vernor-General ; he said he had seen how the home go-
vernment worked in England ; and, as a member of the
Council, he had seen how it had worked in Calcutta ; and
he told us that four important measures were passed by
the Council of India when he was at Calcutta, none of
which
.were suggested, and some of which
were after-
wards disapproved by the Court of Directors ; but still
they were passed ; those measures were—the
measure for
native education, the measure for altering the transit
duties, the measure for unlicensed ri
mea-
sure for a uniform coinage ; and the right
and the
ght hon. gentleman
argued from this that there was no substantiall power in the
Court of Directors. I think I have the house there
is reason to believe there is very substaZita power in that
Court. (Hear, hear.) I should like to have obtained from
the right hon. gentleman, in the moment of that unguarded
frankness, when he gave us all the secrets of the system,
some information from him as to whose fault it may be
attributed that we have not a code for India. (Hear,
hear.) Remember, the right hon. gentleman is peculiarly
connected with that subject ; for in the year 1833 the
right hon. gentleman said, " I believe no country
ever stood so much in need of a code of laws as India,
and I believe there never was a country in which that want
might be so readily. supplied." I do not tell you
that it is my opinion. I think that was a very
bold assertion of the right honourable gentleman, though
it was received with loud and enthusiastic cheering ;
but 20 years have elapsed; that code has not yet passed,
and I want to know what prevented it. Was it the Coun-
cil of India or the Court of Directors? (Hear.) But the
right hon. gentleman proceeded further. He said " Nei-
ther the Court of Directors nor the Board of Control have
anything whatever to do but to choose the Governor-Ge-
neral." If the only business of this elaborate and compli-
cated home government is to select a Governor-General,
then I maintain that we want no such home government—
neither Board'of Control nor Board of Directors. To se-
lect the Governor-General is a function which the First
Minister of the Crown may most fitly and most efficiently
Perform of himself, and for himself. The First Minister of
the Crown is the best judge of the man who should be Go-
vernor-General of India, or he is himself not fit to be the
First Minister of the Cr'own, because an accurate know-
:l(.lg of character is the chief quality for a First Minister
over eti.irwwn' and that is the quality which should preside
e zelection of a Governor-General of India. This
trofriLemizeon 'rnthen, of the right hon. member tells against the
and government
of India altogether, both Board of Con-
trolthis late hour to :Directors. It is unnecessary for me at
right hon. gentleZnil. on other topics in the speech of the
The right hon. gentleman in that
speech demonstrated man'
Points which no one questions,
and illustrated many thin
;which are not at all obscure—
(hear)—he did this, indeed, Torsoearraing a manner, that
I could have listened to him
in a fine conversa-
tional vein that would have cheeredse seemed to table, or
exhilireted a dinner ; but, as it
avoided the real question at issue to me, he carefully
eras et on these points
where he made admissions, fatal
alike to
the Board of Directors andpetehßoofarl:!conceive,Control.
I will now advert to the s
; and,
from
exceed him
ability the right hon. gentleman, for no one in
in ability, but not less able than he
tion in the State, of more importance in discussion—the
peer-
right hon. member for Carlisle. That speech consisted
of
one of the most complete panegyrics of the existing
vernment of India that I ever listened to
read. Not in all the pamphlets on the subject,—egrt
in all the histories not in all the pamphlets that
have taken the shape of history, and which have
so abounded of late—not in all the compositions, of
every size and form, which, during the last three or four
months, have been showered into the studies of every
member of Parliament--not in any of these productions
have I read a more unqualified panegyric of the East India
Company, its Boards of Control, of Directors, and of pro,
*ORM than that which NI from tin lips of the right

hon. baronet. (Hear, hear.) It appeared to me that rheto- -
rical inconsistency *never arrived at a more culminating
point than at the dose of the right hon. baronet's speech,
when the right *hon. gentleman produced on every mind
the effect of a rapid rider who finds himself, after a furious,
a blind career, on the verge of an abyss, not perceived by
him until that very moment ; for the result to which the
speech of the right hon. baronet must needs have brought
him was dearly the conviction that he ought to be the first
man to vote against his own bill. (Hear, hear.) The Home
Government, the right hon. baronet insisted, was a perfect
Government, and therefore he was prepared to alter it.
(Hear, hear.) " The army of India is an heroic army,"
said the right hon. gentleman ; " its Pollocks, its generals,
its Notts, are heroes—are men of whom any nation may
be proud, and therefore," concluded the right hon. hart.,
" we will pass a bill which, for the first time, will degrade
these heroes, and make them subordinate to a Treasury
officer." (Oh, oh !) Oh, oh ! Do hon. gentlemen mean
to say they have not read the clause in the bill which
makes the Pollocks and the Notts of the Indian army
subordinate to the Treasury-office ? If hon. gentlemen
mean this, they admit they are going to vote for a bill
they have not read. (Hear, hear.) This is not all : the
right hon. baronet acknowledges that the state of the
Indian finance is not satisfactory, and he cannot deny
that there is a debt, a great debt, though he contends it is
not so great as Indian reformers represent it to be. The
right hon. baronet, however, says the bill will settle all
that, for that we shall have, in future, an Indian budget,
an Indian financial statement. It must, doubtless, be very
gratifying to the ho use thus to be promised, for the ensu-
ing year, an Indian statement from one who, being now
President of the Board of Control, has been also Chancellor
of the Exchequer, and who will thus, of course, combine
in his statement all the magnificent imagery incidental to
the one capacity with the perspicuity of financial detail
appurtenant to the other—(laughter)—but still there
remains the question how far Parliament will be satis-
fied with a yearly Indian Ways and Means which does
not give them control over a single shilling of those
ways and means. (Hear, hear.) Nothing, I appre-
hend, can be more dreary in itself than a budget ; the only
thing that reconciles us to its dreariness is the natural
anxiety to know what 'we are going to receive and what we
are going to pay with it. But of this promised Indian
budget we are to receive not a sixpence, and we are not
to have the smallest control over its expenditure. The
power of a Government to retain a house is certainly won-
derful; but I think the house-collecting or the house-
retaining powers of Government will he sorely taxed to
collect or to keep a house on the night when the Indian
b(
Luaduggebt
toefr t. e r ge
th t
mh oen gentleman..
briefly)
theis warinaliiinmge nt
s
which have been used against delay.
employed against delay are The first arguments
enose urged on the ground of
authority. Now, arguments drawn from authority, how-
ever efficacious they may be up to a certain point, are of
a limited character. We all of us acknowledge the force
of authority, and are daily influenced by it, but we can-
not bow to mere authority against the conviction of our
reason. The kart authority that was brought forward
against us is Wet of the present Governor-General of India,
to contend agrainst which is an Homeric contest, in which
one has to en.counter a cloud. We cannot struggle against
the authority of Lord Dalhousie, for we know not the lan-
guage in wl34ch it is couched, nor the precise conclusions
which it rekommends. It used to be held very nnparlia-
mentarY, not to say unconstitutional, for a government to
appeal tia state papers which are not within the public
cognizance of Parliament, but, waiving that particular
point, I protest against authority such as that put forth in
the name of Lord Dalhousie being set up in this house,
when not a member of the house, except those who rely
'upon it, knows what the language of Lord Dalhousie's
opinion is, what are the grounds on which it is based, or
what are the precise conclusions at which it arrives. Such
authority, I repeat, is a cloud. Another Governor-General
of India has been brought forward as an authority for im-
mediate legislation---Lord Ellenborough. The authority
of Lord Ellenborough, under any circumstances, is of
course of no light weight, but still, when I bear in mind
that only three months since Lord Ellenborough was decid-
edly in favour of delay, I cannot consent to bow in implicit
compliance to the opinion which his lordship now thinks
proper to give in favour of no delay. We have no means of
knowing on what reasoning the noble lord has changed his
opinion, and we are not called upon to follow him in what
may be nothing more than an assumption on his part.
(Hear, hear.) My right hon. friend the member for Stam-
ford has been especially relied upon over the way as an au-
thority; my right hon. friend stated, so far as I could col-
lect his statement, that he approved of immediate legisla-
tion himself, and that the late Government also approved
of immediate legislation, and had desired immediate legis-
lation. This observation, or admission, has been made a
great deal of over the way, where it has been repeatedly
and triumphantly asserted, on the authority of my right
hon. friend, that the late Government intended immediate
legislation for India, and that, therefore, our arguments
for delay are of recelit adoption. I am satisfied that my
right hon. friend would make no statement of the accuracy
of which he was not perfectly convinced in his own mind ;
but, I am bound to state, with the utmost courtesy to my
right hon. friend—this being a point on which no miscon-
ception P:nould prevail—that what he so stated I heard for
the firs,'t time from his lips in this house, and I will add,
that having spoken to the other members of tho late Govern-
meut on the subject, I am authorised by them, and, among
them, by the nobleman without whose sanction no such
course as that stated could have been adopted or an-
nounced—by Lord Derby, that none of them ever be-
fore heard of such a proposition as that the late Govern-
ment, intended immediate legislation for India. (Hear.)
I would point out, further, with reference to my right
hon. friend, that ha, too, like my hon. friend the member
for Huntingdon, is decidedly in favour of the present sys-
tem of home government. I must now touch on the argu-
ments of the right hon. baronet opposite in favour of im-
mediate legislation founded on the state of India. The
state of India has been urged as a state which did not per-
* mit of any delay in legislating for its government. Well,
now, sir, I entirely differ—with great respect let me say it
—from the right hon. gentleman upon that point. Thero
may be good reasons for not delaying this measure for the
government of India, or there may not ; but I deny that
any good reason can be found for precipitate legis-
lation in this respect derived from the state of India.
(Hear.) Gentlemen in this house speak of India as if it
were some small country in which an insurrection would
occur the moment the second edition of the newspapers
had brought word that this bill for immediate legislation
had been thrown out ; but just remember that India is a
country more than one-third of Europe in size, and inha-
bited by 25 nations differing in race, differing in religion,
and differing in Language. (Hear, hear.) What are the
elements of coinbination among the people of India under
these circumstances *: Why, sir, take the case of Germany
four or tve years ago. Here you have a considerable
country, but a country not to be compared in extent with
India. You have a country occupied by seven or eight
nr.tions of the same religion, of the same race, and of the
same language. You have that country with all the ad-
vantages which modern science has produced for the inter-
communication of man and for the communication of in-
telligence. You have railroads, you have telegraphs, you
have a universal press, and yet, what did the efforts, five
years ago, to attempt a combination in Germany end in ?
It was found totally impossible to make Austrians, Prus-
sians, Bavarians, and Hanoverians combine in any man-
ner theca. Though the people were of the same race and of
the same religion, and speaking the same language, it was
found that their prejudices were so great, that their
interests were so different, arising from different con-
figurations of the soil and other causes, that the whole
thing blew up like a delusion ; and yet you are afraid
of an insurrection in India, a country nearly the size of
Europe, and inhabited by 25 different nations. (Cheers.)
But then, Sir, the right hon. gentleman warmed with his
subject, and taking up the statement of the hon. gentleman
the Secretary to the Board of Control (Mr. Lowe)—which
otherwise I should not have noticed, because it was only
one of those dashing statements with which the hon. gen-
tleman sometimes concludes his speeches—adverted to the
state of Asia. It is not merely the state of Asia, but the
unprecedented and peculiar state of Asia, which, we are
told, renders it the more important that our legislation
with regard to India should be immediate. Now, I say,
the state of Asia is not peculiar, is not unprecedented, and
that every circumstance alleged by the hon. gentleman
(Mr. Lowe), and sanctioned by the high authority of the
right hon. gentleman, is totally unfounded. (Hear, hear.)
What was the statement of the hoc. member the Secretary
to the Board of Control? It was a statement in great de-
tail, not a mere general allusion. He adverted to the con-
dition of Arabia, to the condition of the Turkish empire,
to the condition of Central Asia and China, and he said
they were peculiar and unprecedented ; that Arabia was
in a state of uncontrolled fanaticism, and that the position
of the Turkish empire was most perilous and critical. I
am very sorry to hear that. I am sorry that, with the
coalition in power, Arabia is in such a state, and the posi-
tion of the Turkish empire has become perilous and critical;
but it is a rule of law that no man has a right to take ad-
vantage of his own wrong—(hear, hear)—and it is no argu-
ment for the misgovernment of India that you have mis-
governed our foreign affairs. Then we are told that
Central Asia is in a critical state—that the Khan of Bokhara
is making war upon the Khan of Kokand, or some other
Khan—(laughter)—as if there had not been war from all
time between some one or other of the Khans. (Hear,
hear, and laughter.) The fourth point was about the state
of China, which is now ravaged by a successful insurrec-
tion. Well, take the year 1833, when the bill of 1833 was
brought in, and in every one respect the circumstances to
which the hon. gentleman referred existed in far more
extensive and aggravated a state, and yet they were never
brought forward as an argument for imperfect and pre-
cipitate legislation. (Cheers.) 'What was the state
of Arabia in 1833? It was not merely in a condition
of fanaticism, but you had a new religion, which arose
in the desert— a religion of conquest, —and you had
the invasion of Egypt by the Wahabees. What was,
then, the condition of the Turkish empire, which now we
are told is critical and perilous ? Why, the Pasha of Egypt
at the head of 100,000 disciplined troops was invading the
Turkish empire. (Hear, hear.) While the right hon. gen-
tleman, the member for Edinburgh, was delivering his
eloquent speech on the state of India, the Pasha of Egypt
had already fought that great battle which rendered him
complete master of the Turkish empire ; and there was a
Russian fleet at the entrance to the Bosphorus, and a Rus-
sian army on the heights above Constantinople, six weeks
before the bill was introduced by Mr. Charles Grant.
(Hear, hear,) No one, however, spoke then about the state
of Arabia and of the Turkish empire as proofs of the im-
mense danger which existed with regard to India as rea-
sons why we should not act like statesman towards that
country, and as reasons why we should at once pass a law
for its government for the next 20 years. (Cheers.) As
to Central Asia, instead of a mere contest between Tartar
Khans, had you not in 1833 the commencement of those
mysterious combinations in Central Asia which afterward
ended in the invasion of Affghanistan, as the only means
bv perils you could terminate those terrible and imnd-
hig ? (Hear.) As for China, instead of an insurrec-
tionye
everyt h es those
against the reignbaidngeedmyiresnteyedi,n
wlBb3i3e,halrmeaadd
misunderstandings
disputes with that
warcountry,
man, acquaintedtewrmithineteour
the state ofaffa irsthere sure that
only 00
few v
years afterwards war with China
andcom-
manedncead,very
gave
rise to a motion brought forward by the
right hon. gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty.
Turkish
Taking, therefore, the state of Arabia, the state of the
mp
of thecbinaeinlirB3e3,—i n state
tbeoefe instances the circumstances
Central Asia, and the state
all
ar
of peril were considerably greater, but no man then, and
forward and support an argu-
no man ever will, again come f
anent for an imperfect and impolitic measure
go-
vernment of India on the ground that
vefuon'y
l
(Cheers.) there
h fear dangerthe in
that or in any other part of Asia. hateful to
one more observation to make, and I am deeply gra _
to
the house for the patience with which it has listened
me—there is one other reason given why we should
not sanction delay in legislating for India. I have
adverted to the argument drawn from the state
next
tt
yearurged
we whyare
to
India and of Asia. There is one more argil-
IV)eh asvhfr la
lenaLtre of
delay—that is because
parliamentary re-
form. I know well that her Majesty's Ministry are bound
—not merely as statesmen, but as men of honour—not
only to propose a measure of Parliamentary reform, but
also ok lugs moanuo of parliaments:l ;iforoil'kaput QM. 7

the right hon. gentleman (Sir J. Graham), with a candour
which quite became him, informed the country that the
only condition on which he could be induced to serve his
Sovereign and the State was, that the present Prime Min-
ister should introduce, as soon as was convenient, not later
than the commencement of the session, a large measure of
parliamentary reform. And I know we have the autho-
rity of the right hon. gentleman—an authorityunimpeach-
able —that the Prime Minister completely consented to his
condition—that he virtually formed his Government on
the principle of parliamentary reform—and that he en-
gaged with the right hon. gentleman that a large measure
of parliamentary reform should be introduced, (Hear.)
Well, Sir, one word upon that, as a reason why we should
not delay legislating for India. The subject of parliament-
ary reform, let me remind the house, is not of that com-
plicated character that it was in 1830; the nature of the
suffrage, the elements of the franchise, the principles of
representation—all these things now are pretty well known
and understood. There is hardly a combination with re- .
sect to these things which the Ministry would not be an-
ticipated in, and though we may have a measure of parlia-
mentary reform—a large measure—l have no idea that it
need take up the whole of the session in discussion. I
think the Government may introduce a well-matured
project as to the government of India in February, and may
dispose of it and bring in a measure—a large measure—of
parliamentary reform before Easter. (Hear, hear.) But,
Sir, I hope the house will remember the circumstances
under which this engagement of the Minister was made. It
is two years ago since the noble lord, then the First Min-
ister of the Crown, announced that there ought to be a
measure of parliamentary reform—not in theory, but as a
practical opinion which he had arrived at, and upon which
ho was prepared to act. Let it not be said that while, from
motives of personal convenience, a measure of reform. said
to be necessary for England, is to be put off for two years,
not the slightest delay can be brooked in regard to a mea-
sure which concerns the good government of 150,000,000 of
people. (Loud cheers.) Are we to be told that India
is to continue to be misgoverned, or that India is not to
have the chance of better government because the noble
lord who thought a measure of Parliamentary reform was
necessary two years ago for England, has deemed it
necessary to postpone that measure, from political or per-
sonal reasons, until next year? (Hear, hear.) The argu-
ments drawn from the state of India and Asia are power-
ful, valid, and respectable arguments compared with this
argument, that the political convenience of a Government
will not allow them to bring in such a measure. (Hear.)
No, Sir, I will not believe that the House of Commons
will sanction such a proceeding. (Hear.) I am sure that
they will hesitate before they authorise such oonduct on
the part of the Government. (Hear, hear.) I have now
placed before the house the principal reasons why I support
the amendment of my noble friend. It is an amendment
brought forward, not in compliance with any new-fangled
ideas in connection with this subject,—it is brought for-
ward in deference to the highest precedents—it is sup-
ported by the conduct of the most eminent men. It leads
necessarily to a substantive measure for providing a future
government for India. Before the existing act terminates,
there is no reason why a government in India should not
be provided by Parliament which shall be worthy of the
exigencies of the occasion, and which shall show that the
Parliament of this country is not entirely unworthy of its
office, or unfit to do that which circumstances require.
Sir, I am told this is a party question. Ido not hesitate
to say that it would be no discredit to the Government if
they sometimes availed themselves of the suggestions of
this side of the house. (Cheers.) They have been in office
only for a few months, and the right hon. gentleman the
President of the Board of Control had not been peculiarly
attentive to the knowledge required by his office until he
came to fill it. These are valid reasons why the Govern-
ment might have agreed to postpone legislation. I know
not the fate of this motion, but when I am reminded of
party questions and party feelings, I remember how often
we have to struggle here animated by those feelings on
questions of passing and transitory interest. (Hear, hear.)
We may have causes of struggle which may be soon con-
signed to oblivion, but we are now struggling for something
that will not soon be forgotten; and, however I may go to
the lobby, I shall be supported by the consciousness that on
this great occasion I have attempted to do my, duty to
those who have deemed me worthy of their political confi-
dence, and that I shall connect their names with a course
of policy which I think will be honourable to themselves
and beneficial to the country. (Loud cheers.)
Lord J. RUSSELL—I am sorry that in the present ex-
hausted state of the House I shall have to trespass on its
attention before a division is taken on this subject. But I
feel that the question before the House is one of so much
importance, and that the observations of the right hon.
gentleman are directed so much against the measure of the
Government, that I must ask the House to listen to some
observations from me. (Cheers.) In so doing I will pro-
mise the House that
.I will make no reference to the ques-
tion of Parliamentary reform. (Cheers and counter-cheers.)
This great question of India seems to me sufficient on the
present occasasion to engage our attention. (Hear, hear.)
My right hon. friend the First Lord of the Admiralty said
that, in fact, this discussion was directed towards two
branches—the one, the question of delay, and the other, of
the double government. These are, in fact, the two ques-
tions which the House has to determine. Before I address
myself to these two questions I cannot avoid remarking
upon the lesson that the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Dis-
raeli) seemed disposed to give to his party in his address
to the House. (Cheers.) From the general observations
which the right hon. gentleman made upon party I should
be one of the last to disagree. I can conceive nothing dis-
honourable, and nothing discreditable, when two parties
have a difference of principle, and one party takes one side
and another the other, conscientiously believing that the
welfare of the country will be promoted by the struggle
for the ascendancy of those principles. But the right hon.
gentleman's position has its difficulty in this,—that a party
ought to have some settled purpose and some decided
policy in, favour of which their friends and supporters are
united when they call upon parliament and the country to
aid and assist them. But this is a political occasion in
which the noble lord (Stanley) who brought forward this
motion, and whose candour and fairness I admit, and
the right hon. gentleman who closed this debate on that
side of the house, are both entirely wanting in the prefer-
ence of any policy that they can recommend. (Cheers.)
They tell us to delay the passing of this measure. The
noble lord's address was characterised by an inconsistency
that has been pointed out by my hon. friend the Secretary
to the Board of Control (Mr. Lowe), and I will now discuss
the measure before the House. Upon the great question,
whether wo will continue the government of India in the
hands in which it has already been placed by Parliament,
we have scarcely any light from the noble lord, and very
little more from the right hon. gentleman, and therefore
it is that in adopting the motion of the noble lord the right
hon. gentleman had to endeavour to prop it up by dimi-
nishing the authority, by weakening the influence, and
combating the arguments of a right hon. gentleman of
great knowledge and experience, whom the Earl of Derby
entrusted with the Ministry of India, and pitched upon as
President of the Board of Control, and who therefore is
the man of all others to whom the Earl of Derby and his
Cabinet would have listened when he proposed his views
on legislation for India. (Hear.) That is the first autho-
rity which the right hon. gentleman has endeavoured, but
. .

derstand the tactics of the noble lord. If the noble lord
will permit me to parody a declaration of his own, I should
say, "that his motion is neither conservative nor reform-
ing." It is not conservative, becauses it proposes for a
long period of time to maintain existing agitation—a pur-
pose more opposed to Conservatism cannot well be imagined;
it is not reforming, because the noble lord has not shown
us even a single feature of any plan of reform. (Cheers.)
Well, then, the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) says,
"Oh, but you talk of dangers to India. The First Lord
of the Admiralty talks of the state of Asia, and of
China, and of other dangers that surround this question."
I will show that in 1833 great, if not greater, dangers
existed. Can the right honourable gentleman say that, in
the face of those dangers, the Government of Lord Grey
postponed for two years, or even for two months, to legis-
late on the subject? (Hear, hear.) No, Sir, in the face of
those dangers, comprehending the full peril of the case,
they introduced a bill into the house, which was read a
second time ou the 9th of July, which was read a second
time in the House of Lords on the 2d of August, which
passed through Parliament, and every danger was averted
by the promptitude and decision of Lord Grey. Then I
ask the right hon. gentleman to complete his precedent,
and, as he has adverted to the circumstances, to admit
that we in 1853 should follow a similar course to that pur-
sued by Earl Grey in 1833. (Hear, hear.) This seems to
me to be the great fact of the question of delay. I cannot
but think that if the house agree to adopt that course, it
would be a course attended with grave dangers (Hear,
hear.) I say that circumstances themselves ought to be
sufficient to convince the house that the authority of the
Earl of Dalhousie and of Lord Hardinge may fairly be
acted upon as the opinions of persons of actual experience
in the government of the country. I think their opinions
add additional weight to the force of the arguments which
the question itself affords. (Hear, hear.) Well, next
comes the important question which my right hon. friend
has called the double government. In speaking on this
question, I beg the house to recollect what the right hon.
gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) does not seem to have kept
in mind—the general argument used on former occasions,
used by my right honourable friend the member for Edin-
burgh, and used by Mr. Mill in his evidence in favour of
what has been called double government with respect to
India. I beg to call this fact to the attention of the noble
lord who brought forward the motion, that no one has pro-
posed any system of government for India which is any-
thing else but a double government. No one has said that
it would be sufficient to have a Minister of the Crown en-
trusted with the affairs of India without the assistance of
some counciVor the advice of some persons who had ex-
perience with regard to India, and who might give that
knowledge of details which persons coming into office,
when Ministers change from time to time, must necessarily
want. (Hear, hear.) Let us see 'whether you can have
any other government for India. Let us see whether you
I cannot have in this country some change which shall
temper and guide the GovernerLGeneral, however wise,
however able, and however temperate he may be—nay,
let him have the abilities of a Lord Wellesley, all the
virtues of a Lord William Bentinck—and which shall act
as a check in cases where his poWer might require control ;
and then let me ask whether you can have any better check
than a body of persons independent in their positions—men
thoroughly acquainted with the affairs of India, and who
would be able to explain to the Governor-General the de-
talls of every measure proposed or adopted in India, and
who would thereby oblige the Governor-General to feel that
every act of his must be well considered, and that if at any
time he should do an unadvised or inconsistent act, he
would be liable "to check and rebuke. (Cheers.) Well, Sir,
I must say I think a government of India, supported as it
is by 70 years of experience, ought to have considerable
weight with the house. I do not say it must be at all
times the best government, or that you may not find, as
you proceed with the mechanical improvements of the
present day, that some of the machinery may be sim-
plified and replaced by better. That may be so ; but I
say the course is at the present time to adopt that govern-
ment which is sanctioned by such authorities, up-
held by such arguments, and confirmed by such experi-
ence. There were, however, two defects, which have been
constantly pointed out, and pointed out by those who
now find fault with us for attempting to correct those
defects. One of these was that the process of being elected
to the Court of the Directors was one which occu-
pied considerable time, and which exposed the person
seeking that honour to great solicitation, and which de-
terred many of the ablest servants who come from India
from seeking it. Another injustice was, that there was so
much patronage in the hands of the directors, and that,
above all, the civil patronage was an object among
so many of the proprietors, that it had great influence in
the election of directors. As regards the first of these,
we have provided that a certain number of directors should
be named by the Crown—and could be named by the
Crown, provided they had had ten years' service in India
—without going through the process of election by the
Court of Directors of the East India Company. I own,
I think, the objection quite done away with by that
proposal, nor do I think the objection once stated by
my right hon. frierid the member for Edinburgh would
apply to this proposal. It was no doubt the proposal first
made by Mr. Chas. Wynn, and he put a limitation on it,
which we have adopted, and which, I think, nullifies the
objection which has been made against it—namely, that
the persons nominated should have passad a certain num-
ber of years, and we have proposed that the number should
be 10 years in India. We all know persons who come
home after long service in India are not extreme partisans
or party men they consider India always present in
their minds, and, whether they are appointed by one Min-
ister or the other, that they regard the welfare of India
above all other objects. There was another proposal made
by Mr. Wynn at the time, which we have adopted, and
which my noble friend Lord Glenelg wished to adopt in
1832, which is that of diminishing the number of the
directors, and Mr. Wynn gave an admirable reason
for it—" You had," he said, " twenty-four directors
divided into four committees, but three of these
committees were engaged on subjects connected with
trade. You are now about to deprive the com-
pany of all business connected with trade or commerce,
and, therefore, you have no need of more than the number
of directors for ono of those committees—or, at least, have
not so much need of them as when you had three commit-
tees sitting on trade," I think that the plan we have sug-
gested is a very reasonable proposal, and one which should
receive your assent. I now coma to the other proposal to
meet the other defect I have mentioned, and here I think
the proposal we have to make is not only founded, as my
right hon. friend the member for Edinburgh showed, on
sound principle—that those who go out as candidates for
civil officers should be exposed to general competition—but
that it may be hereafter of the greatest importance as re-
gards the government of India. In the first place I think it
will serve to connect the people of all classes in this coun-
try more with India—that there will he a more general
concern—a more general interest in the welfare of India
in this country, where young men are taken from all classes
of society here. But, in the next place, it will altogether
put an end to the fears which, I confess, I have always en-
tertained, that some day or other it might please the Par-
liament to give to the Crown the Government of India, and,
with that Government, the vast patronage connected with
it. I believe there could be nothing more dangerous for
India and nothing more injurious to the Constitution of
the country than that course. (Hear, hear.) But I have
always apprehended that, without some change, such a
proposal would be made. One who has written on Indian
reform—a gentleman of very considerable ability, who has
written on the subject last year and this—l mean Mr. Camp-
bell—says he thinks it would be a good distribution of the
patronage of India if the offices were given to persons recom-
mended by members of the House of Commons. I entirely
differ from that proposition. (Hear.) I can conceive nothing
more dangerous—nothing more injurious than that we
should adopt that plan. If the plan we propose should
succeed—and, mind, I don't say it will succeed, because it

. , . . -
unsuccessfully, to weaken. (Cheers.) The next authority is only an experiment—whether we continue the govern-
on this subject whom the late Government would have ment in the company or confer it on the Crown, you
provided a great mode of dispensing this great
been disposed to consult is the hon. gentleman the member have p
patronage. • I have heard hon. members speaking in this
for Huntingdon (Mr. T. Baring), whose unwearied atten- debate with a view to amend, either with or without
tion to this subject, as chairman of the India Committee, alterations, the present mode of the government of India,
whose experience and whose sagacity the right hon. gen- and I have heard them speaking with a resolute deter-
Homan (Mr. Disraeli) ought to be the last man to call in mination to put an end to the government. Some of
question. (Hear, hear.) And yet his case is that the au- those who have taken that line are favourable to the
thority of these two persons, pre-eminently the highest government of the company, but there is one extra-
authorities of his party, are to be neglected and set aside ordinary exception—my hon. friend the member for
in order to accomplish some object which the right hon. Montrose. I confess I was quite astonished that the
gentleman has in view. (Cheers.) That is the way in hon. member, who Was wont to extol the government
which a great party is weakened. (Cheers.) It is of India, and to praise so highly the mode in which
not that a party will cease in England, but that when its affairs were administered by the Company, should give
the leader of a party like the right hon. gentleman has his support to a motion of which the end was to weaken and
no clear and settled policy to state, the mere intelli- finally to subvert the government of India. I will not now
gent members of that party, who have considered go into the mode in which the government of India has
this subject, find it necessary to act for themselves, been conducted. I think the general result of that govern-
and express such opinions as we have heard in ment—and I state it in opposition to the right hon. gentle-
this debate opinions which, if they do not agree man opposite—has been a flourishing condition of India—
with this bill, yet derive much strength from the fact that, an improvement in the revenue, and an improvement in
while the hon. gentlemen who express them are not wil- the trade of the country—greater facilities of transit than
ling to support the bill, yet they have a decided opinion were ever known before, and, generally speaking, a floss-
on this subject—that we ought to proceed to legislate for rishing and prosperous empire, whose fate you have now
India during the present session, and that legislation for to consider. I have seen it stated that we have not in
India is the main principle and the first clause of the bill India those great public works which the former sultans
of the Government. (Hear.) Why, air, it was difficult and princes of India founded, and that if we were to depart
to find out by whom the motion of the noble lord was from India, we should leave no monument of our power.
adopted. The noble lord's motion states that the house I entirely differ, sir, from that opinion and from that state-
requires further information before they will be prepared went. (Hear, hear.) For my own part, when I look back
to legislate permanently for the government of lndial, to the government of great empires, especially in India and
That is the first and main part of the noble lord's amend- in other parts of the East, I can see little to admire or ap-
ment. But is that the meaning of the motion? (Hear, prove—l see undoubtedly powerful empires, having esta-
hear.) By no means. We have had four nights taken up Wished their power by a disregard of all obligations, found-
in discussing that view of the question, but can it be con- ing great works for some purposes of vanity and ostentation,
• ceived that gentlemen are in that position, that they and erecting those works by the labour of those who were,
have not made up their minds upon the great question as we see by the accounts of the sculptures of Assyria,
whether the government of India shall be continued or lately published, slaves, who were prisoners of war, and
altered ? But that is not the situation of those who have taken in battle with foreign nations. Those works were
spoken on this subject. There is hardly one of them who in fact records of the misery, the endurance, and suffer-
has not stated a clear and decided opinion as to the nature ings of those prisoners of war whom we now treat with
of the course to be taken. (Hear, hear.) Therefore, in humanity and kindness. (Hear, hcar.) But are there no
fact, the motion is entirely fallacious in its terms, and monuments which we should leave behind us? Will his-
does not mean that which it would lead the house to be- tory tell no tale as regards the last seventy years of out
lieve it does. But we have an explanation of the noble Government in India ? Will it not, Sir, be recorded
lord's motion from the leader of the Opposition to the that in that time we have put an end to those devas-
measure, when my right hon. friend asked for leave to tating wars in India in which the neighbouring princes
introduce the bill. The hon. gentleman the member for attacked and destroyed each other to the total ruin of the
Manchester has explained the meaning of this motion. peoi de, and that the scene of the ravage of the Carnatic so
(Hear, hear.) He told the house it was intended, if the eloquently described by Mr. Burke has not been repeated?
motion succeeded, to introduce a bill to continue the Go- (He: ix, hear.) Will it not be told that, instead of this,
vernment as it is for the apace of two years ; and he von- our .language has been introduced, that better notions of
tured to affirm, and I think well he might venture to law and justice have been spread among the people of
affirm, that if two years were allowed he was convinced India , and that if we have not done what one hon. mem-
that, at the end of that period, no Government founded on ber a eemed to think, strangely enough, it was the duty of
the existence of the East India Company would be adopted the : East India Company to have done in less than a
by the house. (Hear.) Ido not find fault with this deela- singh s century, and changed tho whole character of the
ration of the honourable gentleman. His conduct upon peopl 0, we have at least laid the foundations for that
this subject has been frank, direct, and intelligible. cha,m;e of character by which the people will learn that in
• (Hear, hear.) I differ from him in some of his opinions, English estimation truth and justice are to take the place
but I am disposed to agree with him in the opinion of falsehood and. venality ? We have introduced to the
that, if for two years you have continual agitation, cu Itiva.ted minds of India a knowledge of the science and
excited hopes, and inflamed opinions on the subject lit erature of Europe, and we have thereby enabled them
of the government of India, if for two years you in future, whether they may be governed by England or by
should support throughout India the notion that the pre- of her authority, to judge that Government by a better
sent Government of India should be displaced, and that te: rt than by the old barbarous rules by which one per-
something more grateful to the popular feeling, some repre- fid io us conqueror was wont to estimate another. (Hear,
sentation of all classes, something wild and impracticable, hem- .) My belief is, that, if our rule in India were to be
should be put in its place, and if you find every man who dents eyed, we should possess that consolation—a consola-
has not been successful as a lawyer, or who has been dis- tion better than that of having built any of those palaces
appointed as an applicant for office, if you find these all or h awing raised any of those, stately works which Sove-
adding to the agitation in this country, and endeavouring reign s formerly erected in India. I believe and hope that
to indispose the people of India to expect and approve of a the ( lovernment of this country will long continue in India,
continuance of the present system of government, I own I and : [ can gee no other power so likely to maintain peace
am willing to avow that the enactment by Parliament of arnot ig the various nations of India, and no other power so
such a Government would be highly problematical. (Hear, likel• yto introduce improvements from time to7time tend-
hear.) But is that all ? Will nothing else be seen in that ing t o the civilisation of India ; and believing that such is
time ? It is only the continuation of the Government that our great mission, I shall decidedly, so far as lam con-
would be in question? Would it not be the very empire cern, A, not put that power in jeopardy by consenting to
itself. (Cheers.) Could any man tell me that at the end two years' agitation and the unc%jrtainty of delay, and shall
of the two years there would be any surety that British ceri ,3 inly vote against the tmendment of the noble lord,
rule would still exist in India? (Cheers.) Well, then, I and L I trust that, the housP will assent to this measure.
think the noble lord is lending the aid of his arm to shake 7le house t'Aen divided') on the question that the words
India, and that he has little considered what fruit he might
pr.( 'posed to 1.,:e left out stand part of the question :
be scattering on the ground, what branches he might shake, Ayes
what roots he might loosen, if not absolutely destroy, by Noes l4O
being successful with his motion. (Hear, hear.) The hon.
Majority 322
182
gentleman for Manchester thinks he could stop short when ' rho bill was then read a second time without a divi-
he bad secured his object of destroying the East India sic,,n ,
Company. I doubt his power to do so. I can understand LIVERPOOL WHIT.
his proceedings, for he has employed his strength in oppos- ' 9111 e issuing of the writ was agreed to without a division.
lug us izi the course which we propose; but i caw lot um. I ne house adjourned at 10 minutes to 3 o'clock,