The Sun.
London, England, 1853-06-24 00:00:00

ON, FRIDAY EVE

with it an idea that patronage is not distributed for the
good of the public service. If he is merely to-act betwoen
conflicting claims for admission to employment, that privi-
lege which is conferred on him is of a very invidious cha-
racter. Under the old system his salary was not one-third,
and under the new system scarcely one-half, of that which
was paid to the head clerk of a public office. The patron-
age that is given to him under such circumstances necessa-
rily implies that he is allowed a large discretion in the dis-
tribution of the patronage for private purposes. I appre-
hend that so long as, under these circumstances, anything
like this system is maintained, you will find that the patron-
age will be employed in the way I have just mentioned, and
you will not find that such employment of it will ever be
sanctioned by public ?pinion. The right hon. gentleman
opposite condemns this system of leaving so much patron-
age in private hands. From that condemnation of it, it was
not I think unnatural for us to suppose that he would do
otherwise than abolish the system, or at all events gradu-,
ally to diminish it. I confess that I myself was under that
impression up to the moment that the right hon. gentleman
had made his proposition. But when I came to look at the
effect of his proposed measure, and when I compare it with
the system at present in operation, it appears to me that
the amount of reform which he proposes is absolutely dis-
proportioned to the language with which he introduced
that part of his scheme to the house. I find that upon an
average of 18 years past, the directors have had annually
in their gift 286 military, and 35 civil appointments. The
patronage under the existing system was therefore divided
into 24 parts. Let us remember that one civil appointment
in pecuniary value is worth as much as three military ap-
pointments. For convenience, then, of calculation, let us
turn into value of military appointments what every direc
tor has at present at his disposal. We shall find, then,
that there are 10 and a fraction of military, and one civil
appointment, annually in the hands of each director. In-
stead of having 24 directors in office, it is now proposed
to have only 18. The patronage, therefore, will be divided
into 18 instead of 24 parts. The civil appointments are
to be taken away altogether. Under the new system,
therefore, there will be 13 cadetships to each of the direc-
tors, while under the old system the number was 14.
Now, I do not consider that this is a great reform in
the system of patronage. (Cries of " Hear, hear.") With
regard to the plan with which he proposes to deal with the
civil patronage—the right hon. gentleman has introduced
a principle in respect to civil patronage which I believe to
be unknown in this country—l suppose I may call it a
Chinese principle—this is a principle of unlimited intellec-
tual competition for admission to office. Ido not for a
moment mean to deny but that the introduction of such a
system is an improvement upon the present one. I believe
that it is infinitely better that these appointments should
be reserved for persons who, by their intellectual merits.
aro more capable of filling them. I approve of that prin-
ciple. But, though lam far from condemning the experi-
ment the right hon. gentleman proposes to make, still I
cannot help thinldng that he will find some practical diffi-
culties in carrying out the details of his plan. In the first
place, the competition will be open to all England. Ido
not know the number of applications there have generally
been for civil appointments ; but, if it were anything like
the number of applications which all persons receive for
situations of infinitely less importance, I apprehend that
the number will be considerably greater than he appears
to calculate upon. (Hear, hear.) I think, therefore,
that the right honourable gentleman will find a practical
difficulty in submitting to an examination this enormous
and unwieldy number. There may, no doubt, be some-
thing in the principle of making a man's fortune in life
depend upon his proficiency at an early age ; but I think
that the system the right hon. gentleman proposes in re-
spect to those examinations is rather exclusive, in refusing
admission to civil offices to all those who have not distin-
guished themselves at an early period of life. Upon the
whole, the general principle of intellectual competition I
think is so infinitely better than the present system, that I
am unwilling to find a fault with the details of that part of
the measure. I think, however, that you are running
some risk of flooding India with over-educated mediocrity.
If the principle of competition is adhered to, I would sug-
gest that it would be advisable to distribute some part of
that patronage amongst the principal educational establish-
ments of the country, instead of leaving it dependent upon
any peculiar form of education the nature of which we do
not know. (Hear.) I think that by doing so you would
have an opportunity of getting as large a number and as
equal a chance of distinguished and efficient men. It is a
question whether some part of the patronage might not be
kept advantageously for distribution by Government—not
certainly for purposes of political influence, but for distri-
bution amongst the sons of those who had distinguished
themselves in the civil and military services of the country.
(Hear, hear.) This would be a cheap mode of rewarding
such persons, and it would be extremely valuable to a class
of men, many of whom at present live in England and are
by no means in wealthy circumstances—a class of men
than whom, I think, there are none more laborious or in-
defatigable. Well, I come now to the question as to the
manner in which the right hon. gentleman proposes to deal
with the home government. Ido not think it necessary
to dwell on that curious and rather complicated machinery
by which he proposes to carry out his plan ; I take that
opplanaison. N it
wiollw this question necessarily be,
permanentlyestablishednecey leads us to
andin
full
eratthe
consideration of the general question of a double or single
government. Whatever is said against a double govern-
ment as at present existing I must say that I never heard
any scheme proposed for the government of India which
did not, to a certain extent, contain the principle of a
double government. But if the legislative council which
the right hon. gentleman proposes is to be anything cor-
responding to the council in India, which I believe is the
plan laid down by the right hon. gentleman, you must
give to the members of that council the power of recording
their opinions. You must, I think, also give them, to a
certain extent, a control over the minister ; and in the
same proportion as you permit them to control the =meter
you will be introducing the principle of a double govern-
ment. (Hear.) I take the real question with regard to the
government of India to be, not whether there should be a
double or a single government, but what the double govern-
ment is to be, and in what manner it is proposed to give
efficacy to it. And looking at the plan of the right hon.
gentleman, I confess it does not seem to be one that is well
calculated to give efficacy to this double government. If
there is one thing you require more than another in that
council, or body, or whatever you choose to call it; if
there is one thing more than another which is absolutely
indispensable to the due performance of their duties, it is
that they should be independent of the Government.
What is the plan, then, of the right honourable gentle-
man ? Why, he takes the members of the existing
board, makes one-third of them nominees of the Crown,
and allows them at the same time to have a seat in this
house ; therefore, it is absolutely impossible that they
should not to a great extent be under the influence of
the minister of the day. (Hear, hear.) Now Ido not ask
the house to pledge itself to any opinion upon the nature
of the government which is henceforward to be adopted in
India ; but this I have no hesitation in saying, that if you
are not merely to keep up a continued agitation upon the
subject, but if you propose to introduce any change or
reform whatever, no reform can be complete or serve the
people of India which leaves untouched the Court of
Proprietors. (Hear, hear.) A great deal is to be said
for a double government, and a great deal is to be said
for the maintenance of the Board of Directors and
the Board of Control in the performance of their
present duties, but I have never yet heard any single
argument adduced by any one in defence of the main-
tenance or the existing Court of Proprietors. They share
in no responsibility, they have no Indian experience.
they take noparticular interest in Indian affairs, they exer-
cise no control over the directors who are elected by them,
and they are themselves in a position of absolute irresponsi-
bility to the public. Various schemes have been suggested
for making the court of proprietors a really effective and
useful body, but any measure which continues that court on
its present footing is ameasure which I, forone, shall not ac-
cept as an efficient measure of reform. The right hon. gen-
tleman proposes a bye-law for the purpose of doing away
with canvassing; and I have:no doubtfthat the canvass for
the directorship, as it is now carried on, is a very great and
serious evil, and that it operates more than any other cause
in keeping good men out of the direction. The bye-law the
right hon. gentleman proposes is this. It prohibits any
canvassing or solicitation for votes by any proprietor on
behalf of himself or of any other proprietor. But the sole
result that I can see of that plan is that the candidate will
not be allowed to employ as his canvassing agent any pro-
prietor of the court. And I believe, if you retain the
court of proprietors on the present footing, absolutely irre-
sponsible, and having no peculiar interest in Indian affairs
and as long as you leave a large amount of patronage in the
hands of the directors, that any act passed for the prohibi-
tion of canvassing will be a nugatory act, and you might as
well pass a law that no one shall apply to the goverment
here for an appointment. (Hear, hear.) What I wish to
point out to the attention of the house before I take leave
of this part of the subject is, that the bill of the right hon.
gentleman, as I understand it, ie not a measure of reform
doing away with the abuses which have been com-
plained of, neither is it a simple measure of con-
tinuance, retaining the existing system on its present
footing. The proposition of the right hon. gentleman,
so far from removing, tends in my opinion to aggra-
vate those abuses, because the power is now whollyvested in
the Board of Control, and the directors have not in reality
that independence which they profess to have, and the effect
of the measure of the right hon. gentleman is to mrke the
Court of Directors still more than ever dependent
on the Board of Control. 'lt is not for me, at this stage
of the measure, to dwell upon that vast series of subjects
which occupied about three-fifths of the speech of the
right ho gentleman. The right hon. gentleman entered
into a renew of the whole system of the company's admi-
nistration in India ; and he complimented them upon that
administration in a highly flattering manner. Now I do
not complain that the right hon. gentleman should have
felt a desire to justify, as far as he was able the conduct of
the directors, and to place their administration in the most
favourable light possible. But this I must say, with re-
ference to what the right hon. gentleman stated as to the
foreign policy of the Indian Government, that there is
not a territory in the whole world which is so ab-
solutely safe from all danger of invasion from without
as the British posessions in India, There you have a
frontier of about 2,000 miles ; and along its whole ex-
tent there are only two points, which together do not
exceed 100 miles, by which it is possible for a foreign army
to penetrate into India. Therefore, as regards foreign in-
vasion, we have no reason to apprehend any danger what-
ever. But whilst we have a sufficient guarantee for the
safety of our empire, at the same time there are some cir-
cumstances connected with Indian administration which it
is most necessary to notice in this house, because they
appear to indicate that the state of that country, safe as it
may be from external aggression, is nevertheless critical,
and requires mature and careful consideration. If I look
back over the years which have elapsed since last the
charter was renewed, I find thatfifteen years of that period
have been years of war; that, whereas in other countries
the normal state is one of peace, in India, whatever be the
cause, it is one of war ; and when I hear it asserted that
our policy in India has at all times been a defensive and
not an aggressive policy, I must say that those who take
that view road history in a very different manner from
that which I do. lam not going into a history of the
recent wars in which we have been engaged. I am per-
fectly ready, for the sake of argument, to acquit the Go-
vernment of India of having unnecessarily forced on these
wars ; but I apprehend that every one of these wars may
be, indirectly, if not directly, charged on the foreign policy-
of the Indian Government. (Hear.) If you choose to in-
terfere in the internal policy of states with which you have
infinitely less to do than you have with the disturbances
now taking place in China —if you so interfere, in defiance
of every rule of justice and morality—then your policy
must be essentially agressive ; and I venture to say, upon
the authority of those who had the best opportunities of
judging, that there is scarcely a native prince or an intel-
ligent native of India, who has reflected on your public
policy, who does not believe that the object of your ambi-
tion is territorial aggrandisement in India. (Hear.) With-
out entering upon the history of these wars, I say that it
is impossible rot to perceive that the recent wars which
led not only to an increase of territory, but to an increase of
debt, have been, directly or indirectly, the result of that
great blunder and great crime, the invasion of Affghanis-
elm, (Hear, hear.) One most important element in
Indian, affairs which I think the right hon. gentleman