The Sun.
London, England, 1853-06-10 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS--(YESTERDAY.)
In reply to Lord J. MANNERS,
Lord J. RUSSELL said, if the debate on the India
Bill was closed to-night, he should propose to take the
second reading of the Succession Tax Bill the first thing
to-morrow. The Customs Bill would be taken to-night.
In reply to an Hon. Member,
Mr. WILSON said he expected to be in possession of
the report on the subject of arterial drainage in Ireland
to-morrow.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.
On the order of the day for resuming the adjourned
debate on the subject of the bill for the government of
India,

Mr. BLACKETT rose—He said, in the speech which
closed the debate on the last occasion various " counts" of
the "indictment" against the Government were spoken
of ; and he rose to support one of those counts. The hon.
baronet (Sir J. Hogg) had spoken most unjustifiably of the
arguments against the Government, which he had greatly
misrepresented. (Hear, hear.) There was ground to com-
plain of the meagre information afforded by the Govern-
ment on the subject. (Hear, hear.) The Indian Govern-
ment had for years been in the habit of withholding papers
they were bound by act of Parliament to produce to Par-
liament within a certain time. And when produced the
papers were arranged in a manner intentionally embarras-
sing and obscure, while columns of figures were not cast
up, and portions of the same estimates were scattered over
different pages so as to create perpetual confusion. He
(Mr. Blackett) objected utterly to the East India Company
as an organ of the Indian Government, and admitted that
no objection short of that could justify the opposition to
the bringing in of the bill. He objected also that the
house was called upon to legislate without those opportu-
nities of information and consideration which had been
afforded on former occasions. Thus, on the last renewal
of the charter in 1833, committees on the subject had been
appointed so !early as 1830, so that three years' time had
been allowed to Parliament. (Hear, hear.) When, how-
ever, the noble lord the member for Lynn had asked Sir J.
Hobhouse, in 1851, if he intended to propose a committee
in contemplation of the renewal of the charter in 1853, he
replied that he did not intend to do so, because he contem-
plated no change. (Hear, hear.) The political vicissitudes
which since had occurred might have sufficed to satisfy Sir
John Hobhouse that change did not depend solely on his
will. (Hear, hear.) It was said that there was great
danger from not legislating on the subject at once. But
at least equal danger would result from a measure such as
now proposed, which left it open to alteration at nny
time. (Hear, hear.) But, in fact, the danger was greatly
exaggerated ; for far longer periods had been allowed for
deliberation on occasions when there was far greater
danger to our Indian empire. (Hear, hear.) Thus when
the charter was renewed in 1793 there had been 10
years of discussion and consideration. And yet, though
we had only one-sixth of our present territory, the
whole strength of the Mahrattah nation was watching
us ; the powerful state of the Nizam, with an army dis-
ciplined by French officers, was arrayed against us, and
we had to encounter Tippoo Saib, with all the hereditary
energy of Ryder Ally. (Hear, hear.) So in 1830, when
three years' time were taken to deliberate, we had to deal
with the rise of those wars which afterwards broke out
—and in 1833 there were gathering against us the elements
of our wars of the Punjaub, and those Russian intrigues
were carrying on, which, however they might now be
despised, were then thought sufficient to justify the war
in Affghanistan. (Hear, hear.) At the present period,
on the contrary, the whole Peninsula and the Punjaub
beyond obeyed us, and the magnificent hyperbole of Burke
was realised, that not a peasant in India ate his rice with-
out our leave, while native princes, who, 20 years ago,
w new cultivating
would have leaped into their saddles at the head of armed
constitutionalhos t
st4avengesyasntemimsagof
inedwere
administration, and approached
us with respectful petition. (Hear, hear.) The hon.
baronet (Sir J. Hogg) had taken credit to the company for
the spread of civilisation, and the subduing of barbarous
tribes. But the same credit must be given to the most
cruel and crafty conquerors of ancient and modern times.
The moat barbarous buccaneer that ever cleared a jungle
could boast that he had (because he found it to his inter-
est) drained swamps and exterminated noxious animals.
The same might have been the vaunt of the worst govern-
ments in modern Europe—the government of Louis XV.,
in France, of George 111., in America, and of Metternich,
in Austria. (A laugh.) The hon. baronet had prided him-
self in referring to the illustrious names of our Indian
generals, and the brilliant stories of their victories. No
doubt there was everything in these eulogies to admit and
to admire. There was no story more stirring than the
tragic fate of Sir W. Macnaughten. There were no
achievements more chivalrous than those of Colonel
Outram. (Cheers.) But all this only proved that the
worst possible system of patronage could not spoil or en-
feeble our English race. (Hear, hear.) It was not to the
East India Company, it was in spite of the company that
these great deeds had been accomplished. (Hear, hear.)
It had been said that the system of " double government"
was on its trial. That was a mistake. The East India
Company were upon their trial. (Hear, hear.) The East
India Company were quite different from the East Indian
government. (Hear, hear,) The question was, whether,
supposing the government of India to be either single or
double, the company were qualified to form any part of it.
The question was best determined by looking at -what the
company had clone in a department peculiarly their own,
that of patronage. (Hear, hear.) Before entering into
that, he would advert to one or two other topics ; and
first, that of finance. The acquisitions of territory which
had taken place had not been fortunate in a financial point
of view. Thus the revenue of the Punjaub appeared to
be 1,200,000/., and the civil charges, 900,000/. ; the
revenue of Scinde, 260,0001., the charges, 460,000/. ; the
revenue of Sattara was 195,0001., it had been obtained by
most atrocious means, and therefore it was satisfactory to
find that we had got a bad bargain, for the charges were
210,0001. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. MANGLES—These figures are erroneous.

Mr. BLACKETT—Then that shows how little the East
India Company's statements are to be relied upon ; for the
figures are all extracted from the statements they laid be-
fore the committee. (Loud cries of hear.) The salt duties
were gradually on the decline : in the four years before
1848 they averaged 1,587,8451. ; in the four years before
1852, they averaged 1,366,3121., a decrease of 221,5331.
With regard to the increase of our exports to India, it was
true ; but as to ourimports they were declining. During the
four years before 1845, the average amount was 12,637,0001.;
during the four years ending in 1853, the average had been
12,163,0001., showing a decline of 463,0001. It was said
that the Indian revenue had increased. But how had the
increase been made up? Not less than 710,0001. had been
tribute money—(hear, hear)—from Gwalior, Lahore, and
Gholab Sing. The opium duty, it was admitted, was
quite uncertain—(hear)---and the Customs' duties had fallen
off. The cost of collecting the Indian revenue was enor-
mous, no less than 25 per cent. (Hear.) The increase of
revenue had not risen from improved management, but
from confiscation, or from extension of the area of taxation.
Mr. Princep stated that not less than a million and a half
was derived from tribute—(hear, hear)-500,000/. was the
fruit of confiscation, or " rescriptions, ' in Bengal alone—
(hear, hear)---and another head of confiscations afforded
nearly 300,0001. more. (Hear, hear.) The total increase
was 2,500,0001., leaving little more than 200,0001. out of
the 6,000,0001. increased revenue. In page 306 there was
a statement of so extraordinary a character that ho must
recommend it to the consideration of the hon. baronet the
member for Honiton, and the hon. member for Guildford.
It was there stated that from 1834 to 1849 inclusive, the
uncollected arrears of land tax amounted to not less than
60,191,1671.—an amount greater than the whole annual re-
venue of Groat Britain. He hoped those hon. members
would be prepared to show that this statement was a
blunder in calculation. The right hon. gentleman the
President of the Board of Control had also referred to the
transit duties, as a proof of the excellence of the East In-
dia Company's management. He had spoken of them in
a tone of tranquillity, which was not a little remarkable,
considering that if there was one subject on which more
than another the bureaucracy of Leadenhall-street could
stultify the liberal intentions of the Board of Control it
VMS this. The right hon. gentleman said that the tran-
sit duties had been abolished by the East India
Company, but he forgot to add that the company had
imposed them. (Hear, hear.) These objectionable duties
were collected at a series of toll-bars, not inappropriately
called " chokings ;" and air Charles Trevelyan, in his in-
estimable report, stated that there were not less than 60 of
such " cholongs" within 20 miles of Calcutta, producing
an aggregate sum of between 600,0001. and 800,0001. The
hon. member here traced the history of these duties since
1801, and added that he doubted whether they would have
been abolished at this moment, but for the act of n self-
willed and refractory official, who (set the example in
Bengal. Passing then to the general question, he said that
his main ground of objeetion to the present system was
that the affairs of India were entrusted to a private corpo-
ration, who had no more necessary connection with that
country than the Great Western Railway. He denied the
argument of the right hon. gentleman the President of the
Board of Control, that our (Indian empire was nothing
better that an anomaly. By so designating it, the right
hon. gentleman confessed, and perhaps felt not only his
incompetency to deal with the subject, but his reluctance
to rise to the full comprehension of it, and his indisposition
to grapple with its details. (Hear, hear.) If there were
anomaly anywhere, it was in our legislation, and not in
India ' • it was to be found in our persistence to govern
' 150,000,000 of people by a handful of directors and by a
' joint-stock company. The greatest anomaly, however, was
in the spectacle of the government of India being entrusted
to a right hon. gentleman who, in the course of a five
hours' speeeh, could gravely tell the House of Commons
that things Wife going on in India as well as they could
wish. (Hear, hear.) Of this measure, which was neither
bold nor sagacious, but ingeniously calculated to under-
mine and unsettle the foundations of the company, the
hon. baronet (Sir J. Hogg) had not uttered one word of
praise ; he bad not expressed any approbation of the plan
by which six gentlemen nominated by the Crown were

assist the company in their deliberations ; nor had he the
grace to say " Thank you" to the right hon. gentlemen for
the 4/. a week which was to be granted in lieu of the aban-
doned patronage. (Hear, hear, and a laugh.) With re-
gard to the powers possessed by the company, he (Mr.
Blackett) considered them excessive, more especially with
respect to patronage. Upon this point, they had the im-
portant testimony of Mr. Willoughby, Sir Herbert Mad-
dock, Mr. Willet, and Mr. Wilberforce Bird, all of
whom were examined before the committee, and who
distinctly stated that they were debarred from solicit-
ing seats in the directorship by the intolerable humilia-
tion which a canvass of such a body as the Court of
Proprietors would entail. At the last election Mr.
Carnac Morris was rejected in favour at a friend
of his (Mr. Blackett's) ; and the result showed that
official service waa not considered a recommendation for
preferment by the Court of Proprietors. It was notorious
that the Court of Directors had not acted up to the spirit
of the act of 1834 with respect to the young men sent out
to India ; but a far wider departure from the act was to
be found in the absence of that promotion of native In-
dians, for which the hon. member for Edinburgh and Lord
Glenelg contended, and which the House of Commons at
the time fully anticipated would be carried out. But to
show the qualifications of the native judges for the admi-
nistration of justice, he would refer to the testimony of
Colonel Sykes, as it bore upon the two presidencies. In the
Bombay presidenv in the four years ending in 1848, the
cases tried were 3b6 to 968 ; 6} per cent, were decided by
European judges ;93 per cent. by native judges. Of the
cases decided by the native judges, 5 per cent. were re-
versed on appeal ; of those tried by the European judges,
66 per cent. were reversed on appeal. In the North-