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

precipitate proposition, the consequences of w] aids, we
believe, are not adequate to meet the necessitie is of the
case. (Hear, hear.) Now, that is the question be afore us.
(Cheers.) A plan for the government of India is - proposed
by her Majesty's Ministers. We join issue on t he point.
that it is not an adequate and sufficient plan—(c sheers)—
and we say that, in consequence of the lateness or the ses-
sion, and the imperfect state of the parliamentary investi-
gation we have ourselves authorised, we should pause
in our progress. This is a proposition that has been de-
scribed as something strange and unprecedented-- es some-
thing dangerous to England and dangerous to Indic s---(hear,
hear)—as a weapon borrowed from the enemy, as . in arrow
from the quiver of Indian reformers—(a laug 11)- as a
course unheard of, not to be tolerated without
authority, and certainly likely to produce conse-
quences which must be deprecated. Nov, in the first
place, is it an unprecedented course ? There 1) as been
some talk of the term of two years being allotted to n con-
tinuance bill of the present act, and some hon. g sntlemen
have argued as if it were proposed that two yea] s should
elapse before we began to legislate for India. Now, on
the contrary, what my noble friend anticipates is, that her
Majesty's Ministers, in full possession of the frui `ss of the
Parliamentary investigation, should take adva Map of
their autumnal recess (a laugh) ; that they should I mature
a bill which probably both houses of Parliamen .t would
approve (cheers) ; that they should introduce the it bill to
our notice the moment Parliament met in Februi ay; and
it would probably be passed in a month, and rec *Ave the
Royal assent before the existing act expired. I (Cheers.)
That is what we propose ; that is what we wish ; and that
is considered an unprecedented proposition. (Her r, hear.)
Let us see if it is an unprecedented proposition. The go-
vernment of India has been a question submitte tl to the
Parliament of England twice during the present c, sntury—
in 1813 and again in 1833. Now, what occurred in 1813 ?
It had long been among thoughtful statesmen a si abject of
great lamentation and regret that, by a combi nation of
peculiar circumstances Parliament had ever be en called
upon to legislate for India in a hurried and pi .ecipitate
manner. I could quote—if, at this time of night, and
having some other remarks to make, I could pre mime to
quote—l could quote the opinions of some of th a gravest
statesmen and the greatest warriors to that eff eat; but
the authority to which I am going to refer is on E, which,
at least, will not be questioned by a considerable ► portion
of her Majesty's Government. Late in the se ission of
1813—in the month of bill for the gos rernment
of India was introduced into the House of Lo rds ' • and
what wasthe course taken by no less a personage tlhanLord
Grey on that occasion ? (Hear, hear.) Lord Grey came
forward and said, " It is impossible to entertain this
important question so late in the session. (Choers from
the Opposition.) The system of discussing Indian subjects,
and the most important of all Indian subjects—tho govern-
ment of India—at the fag end of the session, ought no
longer to be tolerated. (Cheers.) I recommend that a
continuance bill of the existing act should be passed, and
that Ministers, the Parliament, and the county, should
have the intervening space to consider of a measure ade-
quate to the occasion." (Hear, hear.) But wa s Lord
Grey alone in his opinion on that occasion ? I am speak-
ing, remember, of the first occasion when Parliament was
called upon to consider this subject during the present sJ
century. I am speaking of the year 1813, when we were
in the midst of the European struggle, and when certainly,
if a Ministry could be excused for legislating somewhat,
precipitately, they might not have found apology, very ne-
cessary. But we have been referred during this debate to
another high authority, both by the right hon. member for
Edinburgh (Mr. Macaulay) and the First Lord of the Ad-
miralty (Sir J. Graham). The name of Lord Grenville has
been mentioned by those right hon. gentlemen. Now,
with the exception of Mr. Burke, there probably is at this
moment no greater Parliamentary authority than my Lord
Grenville, whose reputation is one that rises, a circum-
stance which proves that he was in advance of the age in
which he mainly flourished. But great as was, and as is,
the reputation of Lord Grenville—though in political
economy, and though in diplomacy, he was superior,
perhaps, to any man of his time, and far in advance
of the majority of the communityr—there was no sub-
ject on which he was so pre-eminently an authority
as upon the subject of India. The right honourable
member for Edinburgh referred the other night to Lord
Grenville's last speech upon that subject as a master-
piece. What did Lord Grenville say in 1813, when the ,
Ministers came forward to propose a bill for the government
of India ? He said he could not for a moment sanction
such a course as that Parliament should be called upon
in the month of June hurriedly to discuss a subject so im-
portant in its nature. He entirely agreed, he said, with
Lord Grey ; but he did more. ilia delivered an indignant
protest against the policy recommeixied by the Ministry ;
and when the Ministry, unwisely obstinate, as Ministers
generally are—(laughter)—would not consent to the sage
counsel of men like Lord Grey and Lord Grenville, what
did they do? Openly and publicly, and in the most solemn
manner, they said in the House of Lords that they consi-
dered the policy of the Government in this respect so fatal,
that they would no longer attend the house during the dis-
cussion, and they consequently absented themselves from
the house. I do not say that this is a course of conduct
which we ought to follow. I have no doubt that it is a
Whig precedent which Ministers would gladly wish in this
hot month of June to see us pursue, but this is a harder
ago than in 1813; and I suspect Ministers will find a legi-
timate but prolonged opposition to this measure. Now,
what happened in 1833 ? Mind, I mu saying this in an-
swer to the free criticisms which we have heard of late as
to the unprecedented course, the almost factious proceed-
ings we are adopting. I have shown you the authority we
have for the course we are taking. I respect authority as
much as any man in this house. I do not wish. however,
to lay too much stress upon authority. The argument from
authority has a necessary limit. We respect authority ;
but certainly in this house—which after all is the temple
of free discussion—we cannot prefer authority to the con-
viction of our own senses, or to the results which reason,
knowledge, and information press us to adopt. But what
happened in 1833, the very period when the present act.
passed ? When that act was introduced into this house
by Mr. C. Grant, supported by the right honourable gen-
tleman the member for Edinburgh, there still remained
in the House of Commons, in opposition to the then Go-
vernment, a most distinguished man, Mr. C. Wynn—
(hear)—a real statesmen, a connexion by blood, and deeply
united in political career with Lord Grenville—a man of
most enlightened mind, of great capacity, of perhaps un-
rivalled Parliamentary information, and recognised as a
first authority on Indian subjects. (Hear.) He had been
a member of the Government which preceded the Govern-
ment of 1833 ; he had been President of the Indian Board;
and what did he say in 1833, when in the month of June
a bill for the government of India was brought into the
House of Commons ? " Observe the unfortunate circum-
stances in which we always legislate for India. In 1813
a continental war—in 1833 a domestic revolution." (Hear.)
Charles Wynn was sensible of the extreme difficulty of
proceeding with the discussion of the affairs of India under
the circumstances which then existed, and what did he
do ? He recommended the Government to introduce a
short bill on the points that were necessary for continuing
the government of India, and then to proceed to legislate
in a maturer spirit, and, after an inteval, on all the great
questions which, in resistance to his advice, they had included
in the bill of 1833. Well, then, the course which Lord Grey
and Lord Grenville recommended in 1813, and which Chas.
Wynn recommended in 1833, is the course which my noble
friend, consulting with those with whom he chiefly acts,
has thought it not unreasonable to recommend to the
House of Commons in 1853. Now, sir, I beg the house to
remember what happened in 1833. I take it that the house
will agree with me, that all our arguments, our illustra-
tions, and our inferences should be drawn from the law of
1833. In 1813 and 1833, by a gradual process, the East
India Company had ceased to be a commercial corporation.
The trade to India ceased in 1813, and the trade to China
in 1833. The directors in 1833 represented only the pro-
prietors of a joint-stock company. Their books were closed,
their accounts were cleared, and they were intrusted with
certain political functions. Beyond 1833, then, I maintain
that we have now no necessity for a moment to advert. It
may be interesting to appeal to the character of Lord Clive
and to the deeds of those heroic men who rose in his school,
but they have really nothing more to do with the matter now
in discussion than the ignominy and disgrace of the black-
hole of Calcutta. (Hear, hear.) In 1833 we established
a form of government, or, to use the words of the title of
the bill, we provided for the governmeent of India. We
provided for that government with as much knowledge as
was then furnished to Parliament and the' country by
the Ministry of the day. There were great admissions then
made by those Ministers and by eminent authorities
on the state of India. What were those admissions ?
It was complained that in 1833 that the government of
India had been one which had necessarily led to ruinous
wars. (Hear, hear.) That was a great complaint. It was
said then that the consequence of this system of warfare
was, that the state of your finances prevented you from im-
proving the condition of the people, and also from improv-
ing the condition of the country. It was said, also, that,
from the want of resources, the education of the native po-
pulation was not only neglected, but had not even com-
menced. It was said, fifthly, that the mal-administration of
justice was of such a character that it was necessary that a
code should be immediately constructed and introduced.
(Hear, hear.) I am not now giving any opinion upon these
points ; I am merely representing to you the statements
which were made by men of the highest authority, in and
out of office, at the period of 1833 ; and it was in conse-
quence of, or rather with these admissions and statements,
that the bill of 1833 was introduced to your notice. Now,
what is the state of affairs in 1853 ? How is it altered
with respect to those five main points ? Observe, I am
not now entering into any argument on the subject. I am
not stating my own views. I am merely attempting to
place before you what I believe to be an impartial narra-
tive of the statements which we have to encounter. Well,
twenty years have passed ; the interval has elapsed for
which we had legislatively provided ; and what do we
find ? We still have great complaints. What are they ?
Constant wars—(hear, hear)—constant deficits—(hear,
hear) no education— (hear, hear)—few public works—
(hear, hear)—mal-administration of justice. (Hear, hear.)
Well, but are not these the five great pleas which were
urged in 1833. Why do we hear of them again in 1853 ?
(Cheers.) Are they to be the five points of your charter
(Laughter.) I say that when you find in 1833 and 1853
the same great complaints on subjects of vast import-
ance, it becordes the Parliament to consider the ques-
tion. (Hear, hear.) Well, but we have still, although it
may be imperfect, a great body of evidence before us. We
have had our committee, and the House of Lords have had
their committee, sitting for two years and taking evidence
on various points. Now, what do we find there ? We
find this remarkable characteristic in the evidence taken
both before the committee of the House of Lords, and the
committee of the House of Commons, that those evils are
not denied. They are explained; they are apologised for;
extenuating pleas are urged in favour of those who exer-
cise power, but the most experienced servants of the
company and the Crown will not come forward and
tell you that you have no wars—that you have not
continual wars ; they do not tell you that the native
population of India is a wealthy and thriving popu-
lation ; they do not tell you that the condition of the
country is changed ; that the means of communication,
which were wanting, have been provided ; that the works
which, in 1833, it was said should have been accomplished
have been accomplished. (Hear.) All those great autho-
rities— those men who have been employed, and justly em-
ployed, by the Crown and the company--do not come for-
ward and say, that the native population are educated ;
they do not come forward and. say that the administration
of justice is satisfactory. (Hear.) All that they do is to
pour in upon us a great flood of information and of light
which springs from knowledge, and to give us the means of
forming an opinion—l hope not a prejudiced opinion—on
the subject, and the result is that there remain in 1853
the same complaints ,on the groat cardinal points as in
1833 ; and that we have had a body of evidence, of autho-
ritative evidence from head-quarters, laid upon our table,
proving that those complaints are well founded. Well,
then, is it possible that under these circumstances we can
proceed to legislate " to provide for the government of
India" as if we were legislating for a railroad ? (Hear.)
Are we to be told that this is a question on which discus-
sion should not be indulged in ? Are Ministers to be
allowed to triumph in the fact that Parliament and the
people of this country take no interest in this question ?
(Hear, hear.) If they really do take no interest in

the question the more shame for them. (Hear, hear.) You
may rest assured that if the House of Commons does take
no interest in the good government of India, the time is
not far distant when they will lose that in which they take,
so little interest. (Cheers.) If I were a minister and had-
it
impressed on my conviction that the House of Commons
took no interest in discussions on India, I would not, night.
after night, as her Majesty's Ministers do, triumph in the
csascumstance. I would not take an opportunity of letting
Das,ope and America know that this house took no interest
in affairs of India. (Loud cheers.) This only proves
_wha,t is only too much proved already—that we are be-
coming. yearly more and more a meeting of delegates and
less amlsitous, and, perhaps, less competent, to enact the
part of isanserial legislators, which was once our pride.
(Hear, hear.; , I say then that under these circumstances,
the House of Coannions, the Parliament of this country,.
is bound to discover what is the cause of the misgo-
vernment of India a misgovernment which tis ac-
knowledge by the very witnesses who are brought forward
to substantiate the claim of the Ministry, that the same
authority should be allowed to exercise the power as before,
and who conscientiously give ,an opinion to that effect. I
do not trouble myself to fix upon one cause as the cause
of what is called the misgovernment of India. Ido not
mean to say that several causes may not be fixed upon
is,as thecha causesthat,
p;
e ne
joafi thatly
speaking,
if
a misgovernment;eee
n Lib; but
ewnihai tsgle misgoverned,
sad,
it is prima facie' proof, at least, that the constitution
of that country is au injurious constitution. (Hear,
hear.) Misgovernment—chronic saisgovernment—cannot
exist, in my opinion, unless the general scheme of adminis-
tration
tseemfetlhieod(nfliegaiewescahisteeivneihetti:allty
resent exists,
isNts, has
ttrahetiGmlovhearsnimn
formsome-
thing inef it
governmentessentially
weW hheanr Ie
all considerheard tahnl
read and thought so much, and of which such contrary
defences have been given in this debate, by members of
equal and high authority, I find that that government is
cumbrous—(hear, hear) ; that it is divided—(hear, hear) ;
that it is tardy and deficient in that clear and complete
responsibility which is the essential source of all efficient
government. Now, these are charges which I don't make
rashly ; nor have I used a word of which I don't think the
justice can be demonstrated. Let us advert for a moment to
the description of the Indian government which has been
given in this debate; and observewhat this debate has con-
sisted of, for although we have been told, night after night,
that a house could hardly be collected to listen to the obser-
vations of members on this subject, I have remarked it as a
characteristic of the present debate that no member has
taken part in it who has not had either administrative or
local experience in India. (Cries of oh.) I should be ex-
tremely glad to be corrected if lam wrong. It is possible
that in the course of four nights' debate I may have fallen
into a mistake ; but still I am not conscious that I have
done so. (Hear, hear.) I repeat that Ido not know a
single gentleman who has addressed the Speaker in this
debate who has not had either administrative or local ex-
perience of India. Perhaps the First Lord of the Admi-
ralty and myself may seem to be exceptions, but I believe
we have both been commissioners. (Hear, hear.) Well,
whom have we had ? We have had gentlemen who have
served on the Board of Control; we have had gentlemen
who have served as military men in India ; we have had
East India Directors • we have had gentlemen who have
occupied nearly all the highest civil posts in India • and at
this moment I do not remember a single individual who
has addressed the Speaker who does not come within the
category I have described. (Renewed cries of oh.) Well,
I am not going to quote any gentleman who has not been
in India or had official connection with it. We have had
the Government of India variously described. One hon.
gentleman—and he certainly comes under my category,
for he is en hon. director—got up and said—" It is a great
mistake to suppose that the East India Company do not
exercise a bond fide and virtual authority in India." That
happened on one night of the debate, but what happened
on another? A gentleman of equal authority then got up
and said—"Of what use is this talking of the East India
Company ? It is"—(to use the classic phrase that now
taints the rhetoric of the House of Commons)—" it is a
sham ; the Government of India is the Board of Control
and the President of the Board of Control." What hap-
pened next? A right hon. gentleman, who ought on this
question of all others to be the very highest authority, for
he was once Secretary to the Board of Control, and after-
wards a member of the Council in India, says—
" You are wasting your breath and time ; neither
the East India Directors nor the Board of Control
have anything to do with the matter • the Govern-
ment of India is the Governor-General." This is a subject
of very great interest, and it is curious that you should '
have three high authorities rise in the house and entirely
contradict themselves on this subject. (Cheers and laughter.)
I mention this to show the difficulty there is in fixing where
the Government of India can be found. (Hear, hear.) Now,
observe, here is the right hon. member for Edinburgh de-
claring that neither the East India Directory nor the Presi-
dent o the Board of Control is the Government of India.
Well, a very few years ago, when many members I am now
addressing were members of this house, or, if not, the event
must be still fresh in their memory—the state of India
was most perilous and critical. We had to contend with
the greatest military disaster which the English arms have
experienced in recent times. At that period England was
governed by a strong Ministry, consisting of some of the
ablest men that this country ever produced ; and they were
under these circumstances summoned to Council to consider
what steps should be taken in this moment of unprece-
dented peril for our Indian empire. Now, fortunately for
this country, two of the most eminent statesmen the coun-
try had ever produced at that time directed the councils of
the State. Sir R. Peel and the Duke of Wellington had
to consider what, in the greatest crisis of the Indian em-
pire, was the wisest and mast prudent step, and the step
the most absolutely necessary to be taken. They selected
a Governor-General for India, and they selected him at the
greatest personal sacrifice, for in choosing him they deprived
themselves of a colleague of great talents and commanding
eloquence, whose talents and eloquence were wanted in the
other house, where their cause was not so well supported
as in this. They sent him to the scene of Imperial danger,
with all the advantages of accumulated and previous know-
ledge, for he was at the time Minister of India. He went
to that country. I shall not enter into a criticism of his
career, but this I know, that he gave entire satisfaction to,
his colleagues, and that he succeeded in all he undertook ;
and this I know also, that in the very heat of his enter-
prise he was rudely, abruptly re-called. And by whom ?
By his Sovereign ? By her Majesty's Ministers? By the
President of the Board of Control? Not at all. But
by the Court of Directors. (Hear, hear.) We saw
this strange and startling thing —that Lord Ellen-
borough, selected for such office by such men and
under such circumstances, was recalled by the Court,
of Directors with all the circumstances of shame, and
the very next day he was elevated in the peerage and de-
corated with the Red Riband. (Hear, hear.) Now, I
want to ask who is the Governor of India ? Where is that
den responsibility which ought to exist, and the want of
which I lament ? Have the Court of Directors the same
power tinder the present bill ? I have not had the advan-
tage of the counsel of my learned friends, whom I wished
to consult, but I have read the bill, and, as far as I can
draw a conclusion, it appears to •me that the Court of
Directors could under it recall any Governer-General to-
morrow. Then to tell me that the Court of Directors that
recalls the Governor-General does not govern India, is ab-
surb, because the directors can in an instant change_ the
whole policy, which a Wellington or a Peel approved of.
(Hear, hear.)
of India is not that simple instrument of polity
I think I have shown that the Gorehrinchmewnet
av
have been informed, during the debate, it was. (Hear,
hear.) We have Neeu told that the President of the Board
of Control was really the Governor of India ; and I have
shown von a memorable instance--one of recent experience
—in which the Sovereigta and the Sovereign's Ministers
adopted a certain course, which was entirely counteracted
by the Court of Directors. • (Hear.) I am not making
this a charge against the directors. If they have the power
they have a rigt to exercise it ; but when I am told that
the directors have no power, and when I show that they
exercise the greatest act of power, and when, so far as I
can gather from this bill the same power is reserved to
them, then I say these are important points when we come
to consider the elements of which this Government is to be
formed. Now, remember it is not the question (so conve-
niently thrust forward in debate) whether you have to de-
cide on maintaining the present form of Indian government
or adopting some great change. You cannot sooner or
later avoid this organic change, which we are taught to
consider so perilous. (Hear.) You may, if you like, termie
nate the power of the Court of Directors to-morrow,
but whether you choose to do so or not, at a stated
period, which is prepared, the Court of Proprietors
ceases to exist, and of course with the constituency
the representatives must also vanish from the political
scene. Sooner or later, therefore, you must make an ()r-
-ig: nu iect change,
whether
youndt hwe
ill mquestionak ry
organico u to
change,dec de, therefore,
adherer efo r e ,
ning it you may not
to the existing system, but whether this is the time to
make the change, or whether by postpo
ethfoe
be placed in a much worse position than you now occupy.
(Hear, hear.) I think you may place yourselves in a worse
position. If it be true (no matter whose the fault may be)
that the condition of India is not a satisfactory condition ;
if it be true that the system that prevails leads to a vast.
expenditure, which the resources of India cannot main-
tain, and that consequently the condition of the people
and of the country is not only not improving, but deterio-
rating every day—if it be true that all those objects which
you consider of great importance in the government are not
in consequence attained—then you must remember, and
even her Majesty's Ministers must know this, that there is
no reason why in the next twenty years any of those
causes which have tended to the degradation of that coun-
try and its population should be diminished under the bill
which her Majesty's Ministers have placed on the table.
(Hear, hear.) But what would be your position in 1874 ?
You must take into calculation that, whatever the debt of
India may be, you must adopt that debt as your own.
India, with all its obligations, perplexities, treaties, and
encumbrances, will become part of England (hear) ; and,
therefore, it is matter of urgent and eminent interest
that we should decide at once whether we can afford for
the sake of India, and for the sake of England particularly,
another twenty years like those just passed. (Hear.) If
the house will permit me, I will proceed to touch on the
bill upon the table ; and to examine whether it makes
those changes in the government of India which may be
some remedy in the circumstances to which I have ad-
verted. Remembering the hour of the night, I will cur-
tail as much as possible the observations I have to make,
and will not touch, therefore, on the changes proposed to
be made in the local government of India. With respect
to them there aro many clauses to which I have ob-
jections, but not such as would make me oppose the second
reading of the bill, and virtually, as the right honourable
gentleman has said, this amendment is in opposition
to the second reading. I will, then, concentrate my
criticism upon the plan proposed for the home govern.
ment of India, and I find on that head such objections
a complete
in the plan proposed by the Ministers as alone,
all show to the
irnesimstyancoepintieon,thfeulliynewasaurirean;t in
foe
soriering
house that the plan aggravates all the disadvantages
of the existing system, and is deprived, as it appears to
me, of many of the advantages which undoubtedly the ex-
isting system possesses. (Hear.) In the first place I must
call the consideration of the house to the new constitution
which is made in respect to the Court of Directors. The
first objection I make to this scheme, which is of a very
peculiar nature, is that by the introduction of Government,
nominees that Court becomes immediately dependent.
(Hear, hear.) Now, whatever the faults of the existing
system may be, the Court of Directors, though the ma-
chinery may be cumbrous and tending to delay, and even
to corruption, has one, if only an isolated virtue—it is inde-
pendent. I greatly object, then, to the principle of intro-
ducing Government nominees into the Court, and I will
remind the house, as authority has been so often appealed
to, that this is not a new proposition. Mr. Chas. Wynn,
in 1833, proposed that there sheuld be a certain number
of the Court of Directors nominated by the Government,
and serving for four years. That was virtually the iden-
tical proposition of the Ministers contained in the present
bill, so eloquently supported by the right hon. member for
_',clitiburgh. But how did that right hon. gentleman meet
.n 1833 the proposition of Mr. Charles Wynn? The house
should recollect that the right hon. gentleman in 1833 was
as great an authority upon India as at present, for he had
delivered a speech of surpassing power, and his words