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

IMPERIAL PARLIA R4ENT.

ROUSE OF LORDS—(YESTERDAY.)
THE INCOME TAX BILL.
ttii°t,nee the order of the day being read for going into com-
a this bill,
the 8 Earl of CLANCARTY would say one word as to
he a?'itension of this tax to Ireland, with
respect to which
d„.42,d not think that the matter had been fully consi-
tiZ• It had been said, and said truly, that where
equal equal laws and equal privileges, there should
kilo rile taxation. He could not acquiesce with those
in ""ught Ireland stood on an equality with England
badger and
and Privileges, and hence he thought that in the
40tfet Ireland had been most unfairly dealt with. Ire-
alb°ne was made to bear an increase of taxation,
00488. Angland had all the the benefit of various
. remis-
th • lie Was of opinion that, bearing in mind how
eee4ter island had suffered in times of famine which
den ed, Bo lately, some consideration ought to have
.(Bnvill towards that country, to enable it to reco-
ikt ti.ria the prostration under which it then laboured.
premr,,e Course pursued in this bill was calculated to de-
"le'rising energies of the Irish people, and to lead
4, to consider, not unjustly, that their condition had
ei"' received that impartial consideration to which they
Pal entitled. This was not the course which Sir R.
time dad followed in 1842 and 1845, although at that
?se-d-theiand was far more able to bear the burden pro-
'4l•l --an it Was now. The oble earl opposite (the
tibia Aberdeen) had said hen was obliged to impos.e
~tiater. in order to enable him to take off the consoli-
% annuities • but,
for
his own part, he must express
Pm
- •
mion that it would have been better to have left
i
porsolidates annuities as they were, instead of m-
of thg this fresh burden. Much as he deplored many
the, political acts of Sir Robert Peel, he must say
ce: in this instance, that statesman showed a clearer
th,..ln'eliension of the state of Ireland in this respect
tee'Ztthe noble earl at the head of her Majesty's Govern-
the end the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of
the-I:chequer. Every sixpence drawn by this tax from.
1,20 t eth-4,88 of resident landlords, who were, of necessity,
heat naost prosperous class, was money abstracted
41,0 the best purpose—namely, the employment of the
ili,l„ii,g population of Ireland. This portion of the
the biTmeed, was in itself a complete exemplification of
Illet-ras e"penny wise and pound foolish ;" by striv-
here° eff t but a little—for the amount to be raised
helbrelattd
au but small—it did a very great harm.
Itish "Van, so he would conclude, by denying that the
ThPotsessed equal privileges with England.
ette :a.rl of ABERDEEN said as the subject of the
Tpeol, of the income tax to Ireland was discussed on
40, DeA3' last, it was unnecessary to return to it; the less
e'irtriZal3B, in consequence of the speech of the noble
kg i;"me Earl of Clancarty) having very little in its bear-
Pktreel
- °ni the question. It contained topics which ap-
"lnst to justify the idea that the noble earl had
lkiehed to close it with a motion for the repeal of the
118,
'` t 7.„ laugh.) In truth, it was little else than a
evances, and, even in these, the noble earl had
theith• 4 a most contradictory course. He objected to
%lon-Z(41,440n of the income tax—that was intelligible
thr-nlit then he equally objected to the remission
.
the--t.,et which had pressed upon Ireland, in objecting to
remission of the Consolidated Annuities. One
p1.q.,.-9.lxliow how to please him. If taxation did not
hg,. -vein, and the remission of it were equally displeas-
44ii ;,`;4t was Government to do ? (A laugh.) He (the
liar* "` -Aberdeen) must say that, if it were not for the
keeVesire which the present and preceding Govern-
tliatte„:44 felt to develop the resources, to consider the
ti'k (A" and to relieve, as far as possible, the difficul-
-4)81C-ix:land, there was not muoh encouragement to
1,11:011,ese efforts if they were to be met in the manner
eeted-e,', the noble earl had met them. He utterly re-
qkt;ri'ue assertion of the noble earl that Ireland was
the
with injustice and illiberality, for the very reverse
Th'e intention and the practice of the Government.
The house then went into committee on the bill.
0118' clauses up to 13 were agreed to.
elaose 13,
tllirde Earl of WICKLOW gave notice that on the
eikia„ireading he should move the exclusion of the 13th
°f fee' and substitute one to provide for the assimilation
ClCB,,Besenaent in Ireland to that in England. 84%074 LIP to 56 were agreed to after a desultory dis-
he •
to, wremaining clauses and the schedules were agreed
kd " the house having resumed, the bill was reported,
I,irdered to be read a third time on Monday.
to: L, ORD CHANCELLOR presented petitions from
ne land societies against the Registration of As-
% Bill.
frorg eiPtike of NEWCASTLE presented a petition
'''c'nlan Catholics of Boston, in Lincolnshire,
net the inspection of nunneries.
.b ECCLESIASTICAL LIVINGS.
The B, of OXFORD laid upon the table a bill
thihnctutate the exchange of livings by bishops, arch-
-41(42,8' and ecclesiastical corporations, which, on the
u
414 it" nf the right rev. prelate, was read a first time,
the
second reading fixed for Tuesday.
Peperi eio'clocr lordships adjourned at twenty minutes past
k.

4#4l:ft OF COMMONS—{YESTERDAY. )
1 --., RAICER took the chair at four o c ock.
GOVERNMENT 0 F INDIA. BILL.
/13a:tithe motion for the second reading of this bill,
disteti
,STANLEY_ —who, we regrettctoprscapyc,sewtahsevfeorynoiwn:
1-Aai hea d in the gallery—rose . .
Ilie a r
t hineAdulent :—" That, in the opinion of this house,
IlKtlrts: illfclrnation is necessary 1,,,..-
permanentenable
government toot.
ri --"e With advantage for the
telia •
ek... ! aild that, at this late period of the session,ititisdiina.-
t:edient to proceed with a measure which, while 1
ki,b,a existing arrangements, cannot be considered as a flea
to the following
a,""erent,),--His lordship then spoke
the
orb; ti:---31r. Speaker, in rising to move
first place assure the
L'4 I have given notice I can in the
but
Or custom,
ti4e that it is no mere matter of form
it, and because I
lset
is really because I feel q
tk,,e shall not very
'e ask for its kind indulgence—an ven-
ter
greatly intrudeIre
upon it, that I ven-
sit:4, Ps, it will be allowed I have not very commonly soli-
-1 (Rear, hear.) And, sir, in. the very outset of my
ii,ations I am bound to admit that in the statement
-4 wl. ,
4'4lch the right hon. gentleman the Preswideenatreofntohwe
44,1 °I. Control introduced the bill which.
t lay him-
of
to the
kelf ~ g notice of the house, h. e did no
ot4ol'en to the charge of ambiguity—either on the ground
it 4 having fully explained
.the provisions of the measure
sct,,, er as to the details which he produced on the same
tleman has not failed
to jlll. Indeed, the right hon.
policy
gen
of Indian
l'itilain his views on every
4'441'4114e sufficient clearness questionad distinctness. (Hear,
Isith' The right hon. gentleman nwtheentwthhorloeusyglia,winnireovfieownr,
Ipt44lCreat ability and ingenuity,
Ildo.,1)4 Ministration, in all its departments. (Hear,
o the. And, although no one can
. feel more deeply than I
Alb, 41, oruentous interest and imp.ortanhcceno.fgtehnetlscumbejnecctf,
kay-'484)., I shall be able to relieve hon.
if
I beg at
tii, 44rehension which they may. en
it 1/1. °4lllaet, to assure them that it is not my intention, as
141t00.,.(),t my duty, to follow the right
cohnonei.degraenbtlleempaarnt
W th'ls4 the whole, or even through any
°4 select which now awaits our decision.
14,444tient of which I havedoes not deal
Sir, the
,14,1:1 it does not profess given
tdeanl—with the question,
INtsconer or later we shall have toetto h
determine—withecarried o
the.
(111.„1°1', how is the future government
tli,. Qt of, ileat) I do not, sir, ask the house to
administration of our
pass a ver-
1,4 C censure or acquittal upon the
1441:4tel:kitories—I do nottorntehane
future to
ttchecohmoumseit, look-
tither for
to the present or
She 411 approbation or conddeemscnriahteidonaeotfhtehaaytswtehmicchf
`IQ 11,1„ e°lllreonly, but vaguely,
holbs' government. (Hear, hear.) O then
whichcontrary, Inow
the 1
5,,15e and tendency of the amendment
4t, all is to prove that it is not at this
moment possible,
141 4 /Nitta that it is not expedient or
hadvisoafblteh,ctose come
'hlst cle,eision upon either one or oter
tleteBj, 4'44 while, sir, I accord all that,l wnoonwld, ask
*lttarltftetite is it 'wise, is it justifiable, that ,
when
44.0 . close of a protracted session, that
en.
to-
t to the admission of even the
oripignhitonhionn.lngdia
it
0.....143:4ee1f, the verdict of public
14. tomot be received in time—that now,
innowr,cfberecfnorcee
1411114k7 °Pillion of the people of Englan
can
in any way
Qs salt of the Government
11 when the
or, -..e.q to d • but above a ,
,141),,I, be fully mature ,
41441:"ttes appointed by this and the other Par-
roth.ouse.no..forma.
70111e°terevli-defuorcet,hane
and recording
of gatheringi i
theki iiarpo:le evidence, giving the prnehcloircding that evidence,henefibt but
generall.dyedthethat
now,
be tlehisions to which they had been gm.
afore tl,tilese committees have not yet apparentlyapproachedsir
ex.
Meat-ge terra of their inquiries—is it, I would ask, ,
e, is it advisable, is it hardly possible tolegislate
ow, for
hon.
t'Q,,StZtcanent government of India? (Hear.)
..
,"t4e hrqed,,.ll Will ecollect that the preseenattPfaerrliammereen
Nts Ys of November, that they tthraanetsiixii
~..9' St'Nl7llelA tlaey adjourned to meetagain in February.
i4ttlii; now, then, towards the close offtthneeiamrgoenstthaonfdJmuneeel,
tr,14leor!11,110n of one o
t:,llat }1,,4.1'. 'I, honlle.s which,during the last twenty years,
-tis'ilil,l4a aiZrint the
.lasthalf century, has been submitted
I
adopting that line of argument,
One
~,lise'tP 'Avail), sir,li
Ililat I am laying
thmlteeifs e measure
isPi
as !Itlei'lll• It will be said, of course
1, Ihtet,,Paztrattionnt importance— that there exists so keen
1.111.-::4lll:4l:ttetriiii:: in its regard in the minds of the public—that
~" etzep_of mere personal or party consideratign ought
rarliament from cheerfully acceding
hertodinthareypproe:
(tear.o the session a little beyond t
place,
pro-
that ) Now I shall say to that, inthe first
blcetit,°llsidering we have been here since early in the
antillth of November—considen'ng that
autot elt.Othn.
ino.er
,`4,4ltb August, we shall have sat for period think it is
iii with only two short interruptions—l
thettik>as.be expectation—l think it is not probable,
-Ike a with
ho will consent to continue itssifttisnirgslfaorwinntol
ta.4
erlfroaching autumn..(Hear.) For mysel , the :14e!'ive no course ore prejudicial to the minduct of
44Niiinistation of public affairs, more inconvenient to
itollrlile level
l g i 1 a tPieorneeoef this' house,, et
hi eajnuri that swt
eo
should c h.a_ sit_r en.rinloytf.
444,14, onghout the year, without the admission " "
°t te - 'luring which to reflect upon what we have done,
Iteeat°llsider aild mature our measures for rightre
lie ears I therefore say air, that it is neither nor
IQsye-'ule that the present session should be protracted
w
tot the the :middle or the close of August ; that will alloa
the N, (liscussion of this great question six weeks, or t
to a. ''''Y outside two months, and that I think would not
they very le two
period to give to this subject, even if
till were not other questions to occupy our time. But,
o
less look at the notice paper for this very day,
111,,auao 28 orders uo the list. We have indeed av
I see
vast
hot off htisiness before,s. It may be, perhaps, bu
t-rate iruportanne, and some of which we could

afford to postpone ; but all will allow that, at this parti-
i cular period of the session, there is always a certain quan-
' tity of business to be got through, which keeps us sitting
within these walls for some twelve hours a day during four
days in the week. Now I have looked through the parlia-
mentary annals for the last few years, and I have compared
the time during which Parliament and the Governmnt
have been occupied in passing of great measures. I will
begin with the Reform Bill ; I go back to no more remote
peribd. I find that the Reform Bill for England alone was
introduced as early as the 12th of December, 1831—that it
was read a third time upon the 22d March, 1832, and that
it came down to us from the House of Lords in the month
of May, its consideration having occupied the time of Par-
liament altogether for six months before it was passed into
law. Of course it may be said that that was a measure of
no ordinary character; that itwas one which all but effected
a revolution in this country. But be that as it may, I
apprehend that no one will be disposed to deny that the
question which we are now discussing affects to a
far greater extent the interests, the well-being, and good
government of a far larger population. Well, again, to
take the instance of the act of the emancipation of the
negroes. I find that that measure was introduced into
this house early in May—that it remained in this house
above three months—and that it was not passed till the
end of the session. Again, the measure for the repeal of
the corn laws was introduced into this house in 1846, the
statement of Sir R. Peel was made as early as the 27th of
January, the bill was read a third time on the 15th of
May, and on the 15th of June it was read in the House of
Lords—having exactly occupied five months in passing
into law. (Hear.) And to refer to a measure to which I
myself never attached as much importance as others, I will
take the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, passed in the year be-
fore last. That bill was introduced on the 7th of Feb.—it
remained before this house for the greater part of the ses-
sion, not to pass through the House of Lords until its very
close. Well, then, I will submit that there is no instance
within the memory of any living man of this house of a
measure of such magnitude and importance as that which
the right hon. gentleman has the charge of being intro-
duced at so late a season of the year, and of a similar
attempt to pass such a measure with such unexampled
haste. (Cheers.) And let it be remembered that every
one of the measures which I have cited as parallel cases
were measures upon which the public opinion of this coun-
try was more or less formed. That, however, is not the
case with the bill now before the house. If you look back
to our former legislation, even with reference to India,
you will find that a much longer period was allowed for
deliberation upon every former occasion. In 1833, for
instance, when, if ever there was an occasion when
this house was overloaded with business, when if ever
there was a time when the Indian measure might have
been carried with rapidity, when the Government of
Lord Grey was occupied with a vast series of public
measures—in 1833, I say, when there was every excuse for
passing through this measure for the renewal of the char-
ter with more than ordinary rapidity, how was that ques-
tion dealt with ? A committee was moved for in February,
1831, just three years before the expiration of the charter.
The committee was again re-appointed in January, 1832,
and it closed its sittings, and reported to the house in
August, so that a full year was allowed for the considera-
tion of their report. The plan of the Government was
proposed to the Court of Directors in February, 1833, by
whom, after having been submitted to the Court of Pro-
prietors, it was accepted. And thus, so far as the measure
was concerned, it came perfectly unopposed before Parlia-
ment. It was brought before Parliament about the middle
of the session, it encountered no opposition, and it passed
the same year. And although the measure then introduced
admitted less extensive changes, I find that while it actually
occupied the attention of Parliament during the same
period as the bill now before us, I find that as far as the
oommittee was concerned, that one year more was taken to-
deliberate on the question than had been allowed on the
present occasion. In 1833, then, when the changes intro-
duced were much less extensive than those which the right
hon. gentleman proposes, I find that the ministerial state-
ment was made in the month of March, evidence having
been taken, not as now, before a select committee, but
before a committee of the whole house, a mode of procedure
which, if it was more inconvenient than that at present in
practice, had undoubtedly this advantage, that it led the
members of the house to obtain correct views as to the
bearing of the evidence, as well as more generally in-
formed the public on the points on which a decision was
desirable. (Hear, hear.) Well, after all that evidence
had been taken, and after the ministerial statement had
been made, I nevertheless find that the measure
did not pass until the very close of the session.
(Hear, hear.) And looking back so far as the year 1783,
when the great organic change was made, and which con-
stituted the Court of Directors—looking back to that year
I find that the Government introduced the first of two
bills on the 18th of November, and the second was pro-
posed on the 12th of January. These two measures were
finally passed in an autumn sitting, after having been eight
months before the Legislature. Now, having stated this
much, I believe, sir, I am entitled to say that on a refer-
ence to precedents the right hon. gentleman opposite is not
justified in calling upon Parliament to pass this bill during
the course of the present year. And I have said also that
it is not desirable that a bill of this nature should pass
without the people of India themselves having had some
opportunity to consult of its provisions. Now, here I
admit at once that when I speak of public opinion I am
not speaking of native opinion. True, I greatly value the
opinion of the natives of India—(loud cries of Hear,
hear)—upon every question of local grievance, and upon
questions of purely local interest. But when you come
to deal with a great constitutional change in that country
—when you are dealing with a great work which will
affect the whole administration of India, I would not
be inclined to attach any very great importance to the
views of the natives who might choose to give their
opinions. (Cries of Hear, hear.) But I do say, that
when a measure of this kind- is put forward, which touches,
as it does, not only the interest of all the Europeans resi-
dent in India, but likewise those of all the civil and mili-
tary officers employed in that country—all of those men
who have passed many years in India—most of those
men whose attention has been naturally and neces-
sarily directed to this subject—l must say that the
fact of the opinion of all those upon the measure of the
Government not being yet known furnishes the very
strongest reasons against it. (Hear, hear.) And I will
state further, that it appears to me you are throwing away
a great advantage indeed if you abstain from consulting
the opinions of a class whose evidence would be of the most
incalculable value. (Hear, hear.) For, be it remembered,
the number of those who have come over to this country is
very small. Almost every witness examined had been in
the military or civil service of the company, some of them,
however, though certainly not the whole of them, having
since retired from the service. Now if this were a bill
relating to some subject connected with the adminis-
tration of the poor law in this country—to the county
votes, our object would be to circulate the bill as widely as
possible, in order that its provisions might be made known
to those who would be affected by it, before it finally
received the sanction of Parliament. But, again, I will
say that, even in England itself, public opinion is not as
yet matured upon the subject, though that, perhaps, is not
a matter susceptible of direct proof, but is rather a matter
for demonstration. Still, if I am to describe what is the
actual state of opinion in England, I should say there is a
very general feeling of dissatisfaction as respects the mode
in which the affairs of India have been managed, and that
some great change is necessary, if not desirable—quite as
general, I should say, as the state of ignorance as to what
that exact change should be. That is the state of publio
opinion which I believe to exist in this country, and that
is what I mean by saying that the state of public opinion
is as yet hardly matured. But I have heard it argued in this
house that although the committee up stairs have not
closed their sittings or concluded their labours, still they
had before them the evidence necessary to guide the house
as to the formation of the constitution of the home Govern-
ment, although they may not have sought for information
with regard to the probable working of that constitution
amongst the people of India themselves. That, however,
I submit, sir, to be a most erroneous course to follow, and
one which I conceive to be wholly at variance with a due
regard for those principles of good government, by which
the administration of the affairs of our Indian empire
should hereafter be distinguished—(hear, hear)—for if you
want to know whether it is necessary to make a change—
and if a change, what change—it is best to ascertain in the
first place what has been the working of our government
already. (Hear, hear, hear.) I certainly cannot conceive
how you are to jndge of a government otherwise than by
your experience of it. You judge of a tree by its fruit.
You judge of an administration by its effects on the popu-
lation over whom it has been placed. (Renewed cries of
hear, hear.) Sir, I have heard it said by the noble lord
opposite, the member for the City of London, though not
in this house, yet I have heard him say on a great public
occasion, that the East India Company were now placed
upon I their trial. Well, I admit that fact—no other
issue is before us. But what does the right hon. gentle-
man opposite popose to us to do ? Why, by the very nature
of his proceedings he calls upon us now—without further
investigation, all on a sudden, uninformed, and undeter-
rained—to return our verdict. (Cheers.) Well, I am
inclined to believe that I have thus made out a primp
facie case against any immediate legislature. (Hear,
hear, hear.) But when we use an argument of this
nature, we are very often met by gentlemen of high
authority and repute—though, perhaps, they have not,
after all, so much evidence to support their views—
but still we are met by the assertion that any delay
in giving a permanent form of government to India
would be productive of the utmost mischief. And indeed
the right hon. gentleman opposite, in confirmation of that
opinion, cited the high authority of the present Governor-
General of India. I, sir, own I should be the last person
to question or detract from the high authority of the Mar-
quis of Dalhousie, for I believe that India was never ruled
by a more indefatigable or a more able minister. And to
any opinion of his, deliberately formed and clearly ex-
pressed upon a subject on which he is so well acquainted
as India, I am inclined to pay all possible deference.
(Hear, hear.) But, though I do not mean to argue that
the right hon. gentleman opposite (Sir C. Wood), in giving
Lord Dalhousie's opinion without communicating to us at
the same time the whole contents of the letter in which
that opinion was given, although I do not for a moment
mean to affirm that he has not fairly represented that
opinion, still I do think that it is quite possible, with all
respect to the right hon. gentleman, and the overnor-
General, that he may have sent a leading question to
India, and received in return the answer which he anxiously
wished for. (Loud cries of hear, hear.)

Sir C. WOOD—No no.
Lord STANLEY—WeII, the right hon. gentleman says
" No," and of course his denial will be accepted by all who
have heard him. But, nevertheless, I may suggest that,
after all, Lord Dalhousie's opinion amounted to this, per-
haps. He said—" If you have a measure ready, the sooner
you legislate the better, and the sooner you settle the
question so much the more advisable." (Hear, hear.)
Undoubtedly that was so. It is a point on which I must
entirely concur with his lordship, and one on which, I
imagine, no difference of opinion prevails, either in or out
of this house. (Loud cries •of hear, hear.) That, how-
ever, was not the real question the question to be
determined is whether, under all the circumstances I have
mentioned, and towards the close of a session, the post-
ponement of the work of legislation for one or two years
was not the course far more to be preferred, to legislating
in haste, and on imperfect information ? (Hear.) And
again, I own that I am not without sympathy with those
right gentlemen who lay such stress upon the opinion
of a noble lord, delivered in another place. I certainly at-
tach the greatest weight to the authority of Lord Ellen-
borough, and I am willing to admit that he has painted in
the very strongest colours the danger of postponing legis-
lation. But, while I admit the great authority of the
noble lord, his experience, and his unwearied assiduity, I
am not quite so sure that Lord Ellenborough can be quoted
so safely in favour of immediate legislation. Although the
noble earl announced in his place that he was desirous of
immediate legislation—which is quite a natural conclusion
for the noble earl to come, considering the position which
he had occupied in respect to India—nevertheless, Lord
Ellenborough expressly declared at the same-time, that the
measure proposed by the right hon. gentleman opposite
was one which, in his opinion, was more calculated to
produce agitation than to allay it. I have heard a some-
what singular argument employed bya distinguished mera-

THE SUN, LON

bar of the Government in another place. I heard it said,
as to waiting until we have full information on the sub-
ject, that even to a master any one head of Indian inquiry,
it would take a period, not of months, but probably of
years. Now, I think that an argument founded upon
such a statement is ridiculous. It is said that, because
you cannot obtain complete and accurate information on
the whole question, that therefore we shall dispense
with information upon any one point—that, in fact, by
not making ourselves masters of all the details it is not
worth our while to attempt mastering any of them at
all, and therefore that it is better to let them alone.
(Hear, hear.) Now this is a kind of argument in which I
cannot concur. But passing from this question, what are
the arguments that have been alleged against suspending
legislation for another year? We are told that we are
likely to have a serious agitation in India. But what is
meant by this apprehended agitation ; Does it mean a
disturbance ? Does it mean an insurrection ? Does it mean
an agitation backed up by physical force? Well, then, if
that is really the meaning implied by this word " agita-
tion," I must say I believe that a more frivolous or absurd
apprehension has never disturbed the mind of men. (Hear,
hear.) Let us look back to all our former history con-
nected with legislation in India. Why, I believe that
there is not a single instance on record of anything more
than a comparative trifling disturbance having taken place
in consequence of a delay in our legislation for India,
' excepting the one case which occurred in Madras at
the beginning of the present century. I do not be-
lieve that, with the exception to which I have referred,
you can point out a single instance in which any-
thing like a serious disturbance took place in India
under such circumstances. If we look back to the years
1783, 1813, or 1833, when the charters were to be re-
newed, we find nothing whatever had occurred in India
to warrant such an apprehension. We have frequently be-
fore placed the Government of India upon their trial. We
have frequently before tested their patience in respect to
our legislation. And at those periods to which I have
referred, our movements were as well known to the natives
of India as they are now, when we ask you to assent to a
little further temporary suspension, before you enact a
measure which, under the circumstances, must be ad-
mitted to be one of an imperfect character. I need not go
back to those periods to which I have referred for the pur-
pose of showing you the absurdity of your apprehensions in
respect to delaying legislation. I need only remind you,
that during the last two years it was well known in Indi%
that it would be in the power of Parliament for a limited
period to renew or to change the existing form of govern-
ment for India. Well, then, I ask you, have any distur-
bances arisen in India in consequence ? (Hear.) If no dis-
turbances have taken place between the years 1850 and
1853, although it was well known that durng that period
the fate of the Government hung upon the decision of Par-
liament, I do not see any ground for apprehension now,
merely because you require a little longer time, in order to
enable you to introduce a complete and efficient measure
for the future government of India. (Hear.) But, in
point of fact, I do not believe that there is any one who is
acquainted with India who can entertain any apprehen-
sion of insurrection or disturbance by reason of this delay.
There are, on the contrary, many reasons for supposing
that no isturbances nor insurrections will take place. In
the first place, let us consider the immense military force
we have in the country, and that the natives of India are
an unwarlike people. Let us recollect that there is
no unity of action amongst them' and that the result
of the whole policy pursued by the East India Com-
pany has been to diminish as far as possible the num-
ber of wealty and influential men amongst the natives.
(Cries of Hear.) At this moment, if there was any in-
clination to disturbance in India, there is not to be found
in any part of the country a leader that could reckon on a
large proportion of followers. Why, there is at present a
total absence of men who would be qualified or desirous of
leading such a movement : and the experience of the best-
informed persons on the subject is that such a movement
could not really occur. Though many independent states
had been subject to revolution within a short period, they
have never risen against the supreme power or have never
attempted to break the link that bound them to this
country. Well, then, it does not appear to me reasonable
to suppose that the same people and the same races who
had seen their native rulers destroyed and their native
Governments destroyed without a murmur—that, because
we deem it necessary to pause for a little longer before we
enact a measure for the Government of India they would
exhibit their impatience in the way of disturbance or in-
surrection. (Hear.) Moreover, it is highly probable that
the great mass of the people of India will know nothing
whatever of the merits of the bill, even when it is passed
into a law. But perhaps it is supposed by those who ad-
vocate immediate legislation that delay would occasion
something like that sort of agitation which we have in
England. Now, in the first place I believe that anything
like an agitation such as we have in England is totally
alien to and repugnant to the habits of the natives of
India. But even if a large number of petitions were to be
poured into this house, and even if there was a greater de-
gree of attention paid by the natives to their local griev-
ances—even if they did find out that they wanted several
public works deemed necessary for the improvement of the
country, together with a mitigation of taxation, I don't
think that any agitation of such a kind would prove a
great injury to us. On the contrary, I believe that if you
could get the people of India to take a little more interest
in their own public affairs, you would not be injuring the
stability of the English Government, or creating any degree
of disturbance.that could give us the slightest cause for
uneasiness. I believe that such a movement in the public
mind of India would materially assist you in carrying on
the administration of Indian affairs. I certainly do not
understand what is meant by saying that there is a danger
of creating agitation in India, because it is known that
the Legislature of this country is ready to provide remedies
for their grievances. I can understand that when men
know that the doors of Parliament are closed against their
complaints, that, in such a case, there would be something
to gain by violent means, inasmuch as there was no hope
of succeeding otherwise ; but I cannot imagine anything
to provoke an agitation by physical force when the people
themselves are fully conscious that, whatever those griev-
ances may be, they have a constitutional, a peaceable, and
an accessible remedy in this house, which was ready to
take their grievances into consideration. (Hear, hear.)
Well, but after all, I do not understand upon what ground
those who support the measure of the Government are
justified in speaking of the danger of agitation arising from
delay. We are told that if you do not legislate immedi-
ately, there will be a serious agitation in India. Well,
but the bill of the right hon. gentleman himself a provi-
sional measure. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman
introduces a measure which he says is, at all events, an
experiment, and that if it is found not to work, it will
be in the power of Parliament either to revoke or alter
the bill. Why, what is that but suspending legisla-
tion? It is introducing a provisional state of things for
a limited and indefinite period. I can understand how
those who are satisfied with the present state of things
can argue against the danger of a provisional state of things
and introducing such a measure as that proposed by the
right hon. gentleman ; but I confess that I do not under-
stand how that argument can be used by those who sup-
port the present bill, and far less by those who have intro-
duced the measure. (Hear, hear.) Well, as regards the
actual administration of affairs in India, what, I ask, will
be the result of putting the government on its trial for
some time longer ? Sir, I believe that the result will be
this—that all persons ho are employed under the Govern-
ment will work under an increased sense of responsibility,
and with more activity, in trying to set their houses in
order before the arrival of the next session. (Hear, hear.)
Certainly it is very often said—and I believe with truth—
that there is more local reform and improvement effected
in the two or three years before the expiration of the char-
ter than in the ten years preceding. That I believe to be
literally the case, and I think there will be a still stronger
inducement to those employed in the Government of India
to exert themselves in effecting those improvements that
are desirable when they know that they will have the
short interval for proving themselves worthy of their posi-
tion between the present period and the next session of
Parliament, for I think that the result of suspending legis-
lation for another year will be good. I know not whether
it is worth my while to refer to certain objections and
taunts which I have heard made in other places against this
proposition on our part for delay. I have heard it said that
although we are now proposing to suspend legislation, yet
that it was the intention of the late Government to have
legislated immediately upon the subject. Now I beg to
say most distinctly, that that allegation is utterly un-
founded. I have looked back to see what had been the

language held by the leader of the late Government at
the time when this question was brought before Par-
liament. I find that the noble earl had used the follow-
ing words on the 2nd April last year :—" By the report
of the committee of this and the other House of Parliament,
her Majesty's Government are ready to be guided in the
course which they ought to take in reference to India ; and
to these committees must be deputed the important task
of considering how the affairs of India hereafter shall
best be conducted." Why, the meaning of those words is
clearly against immediate legislation. And the right hon.
gentleman who then held the office which was represented
by the right hon. gentleman opposite (Sir C. Wood), in
moving for a committee of this house, used similar lan-
guage. Well, I have referred to those observations for
the purpose of showing what the intentions of the late
Government were in respect to this subject. I certainly am
not aware that it was ever the intention of the late Govern-
ment to have legislated for India previous to the presenta-
tion of the reports of the committees that had been ap-
pointed by both houses of Parliament to inquire into the
subject. I wish now to make an observation in reference
to the form of the amendment which I have submitted to
the house. In the words of my amendment I have merely
stated that further information is necessary to enable Par-
liament to legislate for the future government of India,
and that, therefore, it is inexpedient to proceed with
the present bill. Of course that amendment is open
to objection if I intend to convey by it an opinion that
we ought not to legislate in some form in order to meet
the difficulty that arises by the expiration of the charter.
Now I wish to state distinctly that in the amendment
which I have proposed, although my meaning may not be
very clearly expressed, that the intention of it is that we
shall continue the act for a limited period of time. I now
wish to make a few remarks upon the measure of the right
hon. baronet (Sir C. Wood.) That measure consists of a
variety of details and of many provisions. As to many of
those provisions we are agreed, and I have no desire toin-
terpose any unnecessary objections. There is, however,
one or two of those provisions which I think exceedingly
objectionable. The three main provisions of the right hon.
gentleman's bill are these—first, the non-renewal of the
charter; secondly, the plan by which the patronage is to
be disposed of ; and, lastly, the constitution of the Court
of Directors. Ido not deny that all legislation at all times
and in all countries must, to a certain extent, be experi-
mental. But, I confess, that instead of proposing a mea-
sure so confessedly experimental as the present is—a mea-
sure which is framed in such a way as to leave it open to
Parliament at any period to alter or revoke—l think it
would be much better if the right hon. gentleman had
taken a fixed term of years, and had said that this India
Bill, whether it be good or bad, shall have a fair trial.
Now that, in my opinion, would be a better and a wiser
course for the right bon. gentleman to have taken than the
one he has adopted. I think that when the right hon. gen-
tleman leaves his measure open, to be altered at any time
that Parliament shall think proper, he utterly destroys
his own argument used as any amendment, that
there will be an agitation in India if we refused to legi-
slate until next session. (Hear, hear.) The right hon.
gentleman dwelt at some length upon the question of
patronage. The East India Company has been exposed
to some reflections as to the manner in which they
have disposed of their patronage. In that censure Ido
not concur. I think that the patronage by the East
India Company was better disposed of under all the circum-
stances of their position than some persons are disposed to
admit. But I say at the same time, that the system of
placing so large an amount of patronage in their hands is
one which I think is not calculated to promote the interests
of the public service. You give to the directors of the Com-
pany an allowance which is perfectly inadequate for the
services they have to discharge. These services are per-
formed in private, and are not brought forward under the
public eye. A director is not paid for his services in pecu-
niary emoluments—it is said that he is paid in patronage.
ISut when you say that, you employ a phrase that carries