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

additional check as against war. But have we proposed no
check ? I contend that we have introduced a system
which will form a most admirable check. The annual
statement by a responsible Minister of the Crown of the
finances in India will give an opportunity to this house
of challenging every transaction with Indian interests
and Indian wars. (Hear, hear.) It is not my wish to
weary the house with details upon finance ; but again try
the merits of the system by its fruits. I will just glance
at the matter of finance. After the renewal of the
charter a large balance was appropriated in the extinc-
tion of the debt--rightly appropriated, I think, but with
the consent of Parliament, for it was done in pursuance of
an Act of Parliament. In 1833 the debt of India was
38,000,0001. It is now 53,000,0001. The addition, there-
fore, on the face of the account has been 15,000,0001. But
in 1833 there was a balance in the Exchequer of 8,400,0001.
The balance at present in the Exchequer is 15,000,0001.
Deducting therefore that surplus of 6,600,0001. from the
15,000,000/. apparently of additional debt, there does only
stand an addition of 8,400,0001. of Indian debt after the
Affghan war, the Burmah war, the Punjab war, and
the war in Scinde—four wars most expensive and most im-
portant, and they have been conducted, one and all, to a
successful conclusion. But then the weight of the debt
must bear some relation to the income of the state on
which it is charged. At the time of the passing of the
charter, in 1833, the debt, as I have said, was 38,000,0001.
The revenue at that time was 18,500,0001. In 1853 the
debt is 53,250,0001. But what is the revenue ? Is it
18,000,000? On the contrary, the income—the territorial
income and revenue of the East India Company—is
29,000,000/. Therefore, if the debt has increased 40 per
cent., the revenue has increased 55 per cent. in the same
time. But it may be said this does anything but prove
the improved condition of the people of India. That
would be true if you could show there had been
any increase of taxation during that period? But
is it so ? On the contrary, the tax on salt has been re-
duced 25 per cent., and the whole of the transit duty has
been abolished. So much with reference to the finances of
India. (Hear, hear.) Something has been said about the
patronage of the directors. I have already told you how
that right has been exercised. The chairman of the com-
mittee will correct me if I am wrong, but I think I may
boldly state that, with every desire of procuring evidence
of malversation in the distribution of patronage, no such
proof has been produced. (Hear, hear.) On the other
hand, I may mention with the greatest praise men who
have not been followers of the aristocracy, but men who
have been brought from the middle class—
" Curibus parviset paupere terra,
Missus in imperium magnum."
This has been the character, this is the character, of the
most distinguished servants of the East India Company,
such as Malcolm and Munroe. (Hear, hear.) I say, then,
that you may change your system—alter it if you please—
remove its imperfections if you can— but my firm and con-
fident belief is that greater and better men will not be sent
out to India under any other system than have been em-
ployed both in the civil and military service for the last
fifty years, and existing as it now exists. (Hear, hear.)
Now, with respect to the system of canvassing, I believe it
has not been conducive to the welfare of the country. And
why do I say so ? I believe -some of the most distinguished
men have been excluded by not being willing to submit to
that canvass. One honourable member opposite was un-
willing to submit to that system. Mr. Willoughby, Mr.
Bird, and Mr. Robertson have also declared against it, and
upon the whole the weight of testimony is decidedly op-
posed to it. If there be anything unworthy in that can-
vass, it is connected with the promise of patronage as a
consideration for support. We strike at the very sys-
tem of undue canvass by our plan of open competi-
tion for the civil appointments, for the scientific ap-
pointments in the army, and for medical appoint-
ments. I think the diminished proportion of patronage,
with reference to the army, may safely be confided in
the manner proposed by this bill. The honourable
member for the West Riding says the plan is fatal to
the extended employment of the natives of India. On this
subject I may refer to the names of Elphinstone, Malcolm,
and Munroe. Lord W. Bentinck partook of the opinion,
when he went to India, that the natives were not suffi-
ciently trustworthy; but • with the firmness and honesty
which so peculiarly characterised him, he, on his own re-
sponsibility, gave effect to the means of further employ-
ment. Did the East India Company interpose their autho-
rity, and reject that extension of employment to the na-
tives? Far from it. The hon. member for Honiton (Sir
J. W. Hogg) the other night read to the house a dispatch
from the East India Company, in which they highly com-
mended the systeni which Lord W. Bentinck had intro-
duced. I confidently believe that if it had been predicted
in 1833 to Elphinstone and Munroe and Malcolm that the
natives of India would be employed to the extent to which
they are now employed in 1853, the most sanguine hopes
would not have allowed them to believe that so great a
change could quietly have been effected in so short a time.
I will not weary the house by arguing in favour of the dis-
tinction between the covenanted and uncovenanted service.
I do not believe you can depart from that distinction in
the civil service and maintain it in the military service.
Finding it existing—finding it has been maintained up to
the present time—l hold that it would be the greatest in-
discretion, the most wanton incurring of needless danger,
to break down that line of demarcation. Ido not believe
you could open the covenanted service in respect to civil
appointments and not greatly disturb it with reference to
military appointments. I will not push this topic farther,
but leave it to the sense and discretion of every one who
hears me to say whether his conscience does not tell him
that we ought to be careful on that subject. What more
has been done ? It has already been said, with respect to
general appointments, that 99 cases out of every 100 are ad-
judicated upon by native judges. In 1833 they were very
inadequately rewarded. The stipendiary magistrate at Cal-
cutta receives a salary of 1,5001. a year. The great body of
the judges, except of the lowest class, receive salaries vary-
ing from 1,5001. as a maximum to 3601. as a minimum ; and
very few of the natives receive salaries so high as 4001. I
am persuaded that there is a sincere desire on the part of
the British Government and of tho Governor-General to
introduce more and more into the service of the public,
as their fitness by education shall render the extension of
the principle safe, the natives of the country. (Hear,
hear.) No apprehension of imaginary danger should in-
duce me to act with injustice to the people of that great
country, in withholding from them any share of power
for which their education fits them. But, on the other
hand, no fanciful notions of liberality, no schqsnes of
Government unsuited to that country, will, I hope, induce
the house to sanction any innovations of an untried and
dangerous character, however specious they may appear.
(Hear, hear.) I hope the house upon the whole will con-
sent to the second reading of this bill. There i; on the
part of the Government, every disposition to meet any
discussion in reference to its details in a spirit of the most
perfect candour. But I am satisfied that no more dan-
gerous course in the present critical circumstances could
be taken than to reject the measure, and that rejection
would be the effect of the adoption of the amendment of
noble lord. (Cheers.)
Sir H. MADDOCK said that the legislation now
intended would be imperfect and partial, and that the
bill did not legislate for India, nor provide for one-third of
the topics which ought to have been brought under the
consideration of Parliament. All that was now left undone
would have to be done at the discretion of the President of
the Board of Control. He should have voted against in-
troducing any such measure this session, but as this bill
had been introduced, he thought, were it rejected, that a
prejudicial effect would be produced on the minds of the
people of India, and he should therefore vote for the second
reading, in the hope that various suggestions which he
made in the course of his speech would be duly considered
in committee.
Mr. J. PHILLIMORE charged Sir James Graham with
having sought to lead away the house from the real ques-
tion, which was, the result of the administration of the
company. He went at much length into details to show
the debased and oppressed condition of the natives, and
urged that Mr. Macaulay ought to have risen and declared
that the company had falsified the promises which he had
made in their name years before. He urged that we should
repent before repentance was too late, and do the people
of India the tardy justice of giving them a responsible
government. Parliament was now on its trial, and would
be judged by posterity.
Mr. M. MYLNES had come to the conclusion that no
case had been made out for changing the Government of
India. We ought to be very cautious, under the circum-
stances, of pronouncing censure on the efforts which able
and honest men had made for the administration of that
country, and he thought that nothing more remarkable
had occurred in regard to that administration than might
have been expected from the historical and political diffi-
calties of the case. He had one objection to the Govern-
ment bill, namely, the provision for open competition,
from which he did not believe that benefit wctld be de-
rived, but he should reserve this consideration for commit-
tee. The hon. member was frequently interrupted by calls
for division.

Mr. BRIGHT was not sure that, even if the bill were
loss objectionable, it would not be advisable to delay it.
• There could be no doubt that, a short time ago, the house,
the newspaper press, and, as he believed, the Government,
were, in favour of postponing legislation—as was the
opinion of India. He did not like the bill better for having
no fixed period mentioned in it ; for, unstatesmanlike as it
was, it might have as long a run as the act which it was
to supplant. As regarded Lord Dalhousie's opinion, it was
probable that Sir J. Hogg, or some one else, had told that
nobleman what sort of a recommendation was desired.
He not believe any one, in or out of the house, wag in
favour of the measure. Of course, all who were connected
with the company were for immediate legislation, for they
know that,-after two years' delay, public opinion would
snake a renewal of their power impossible. Delay, he de-
clared, was wisdom. Remarking that previews speakers on
the Government side had not defended the bill, but had
thought that in vindicating the company's administration
of the- past they had done enough in support of a measure
for the future, ho entered into a prolonged argument to
show that the Indian Government had neither been correct
in the theory nor advantageous in practice. He dwelt on
the misery of the peasantry and the internal violence
which was permitted to take place, argued that our courts
produced the perjury imputed to the natives, characterised
the great trunk road as a merely military and not a com-
mercial ono, and showed how comparatively small was
the annual sum laid out in works, observing that the
town of Manchester alone had for years spent more in its
own improvements than had been spent in India by a go-
vernment drawing 29,000,0001. of taxes, and ruling more
than 100,000,000 of people. He had hoped to hear from
Mr. Macaulay all that , could be said for the bill, and be-
lieved he had not been diappointed ; and, referring to Mr.
Macaulay's description of the enormous and uncontrolled
powers of a collector, he urged that these afforded an argu-
ment why a government which appointed such men should
be theoretically correct. He demanded why, if soldiers and
civil servants were ready to go out and labour in India for
years, energetic commercial men were not, and the fault,
he contended, must be caused by mal-administration.
After some strictures on the financial condition of India,
he proceeded to examine the bill. Assailing the principle
on which the Indian administration was founded, he urged
that the proprietors had no control over the directors, the
latter had none over the secret committee, and that again
had none over the Board of Control, nor had the press
or Parliament any power over the Indian Government, and
no bill tending to continue this mask and subterfuge
should receive anything but the condemnation he be-
stowed on the Government and on the present mea-
sure. The Government had certainly done much to de-
grade the Court of Directors by taking patronage from it,
and by showing an opinion that its constituency was unfit
to elect all its members, but no direct responsibility was
created as regarded a minister in that house, and the Pre-
sident of the Board of Control would shuffle away from
Indian questions as heretofore. He dwelt upon the popu-
larity which a government direct from the Crown would
enjoy in India. We were losing a great opportunity, and
ho was unhappy that the bill had fallen into the hands of
a Minister unable to comprehend the importance of the
subject. By passing this bill we should ignore our own
constitution, and throw mud upon oar representative in.
stitutions.

Mr. D. Seymour, Mr. Rich, and another hon. member
rose with Sir J. Hogg, but, in deference to the call of the
house, gave way.
Sir J. W. HOW claimed the kind indulgence of the