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

_ -
cannot be pretended that free or legislative government is
at this moment possible. (Hear, hear.) It has been said
that the measure which the Government have proposed
has no character of permanency about it. I admit that
the measure, as we propose it, is not, as heretofore pro-
posed, for any fixed period, however extended. It is in-
definite on the face of it ; but with reference to perma-
nence, this is my opinion, that if the measure be good,
with the alterations which we propose, it will be for the
permanent government of India. If the alterations which
we propose are by experience proved to be defective, it
will be open at any time to the wisdom of Parliament to
apply the necessary corrective, whereby we shall have with
the advantage of permanence every facility for correcting
imperfections which{ experience may prove to exist. (Hear,
hear.) I must say; although I differ widely from the mo-
tion of the nobler lord which we are now discussing, I
heard his speech,in proposing it, with very great pleasure.
It was a speech of great ability. It was a speech distin-
guished by candour, and the absence of anything like
party acrimony or party feeling. (Cheers.) I think the
noble lord has done well in employing his leisure time in
honourably- visiting distant continents, and enabling him-
self to form a correct judgment of different nations in
immediate connection with the Government of this coun-
try. He thereby qualifies himself to pronounce opinions,
and to sustain that high name which he bears, and that
hereditary talent which he would be unworthy of his
father if he did not possess. (Cheers.) I say I heard his
speech with great pleasure, but at the same time I thought
it would have been more vigorous if it had been less can-
did, and that the number of admissions weakened the effect
of the proposition he maintained. Let me call attention
to how large those admissions are. In the first place, he
(loos not contend there is any necessity for consulting the
native population of India. That admission is altogether
inconsistent with the doctrine propounded by the honour-
able member for Montrose, that there ought to be delay,
because tho people of India have not yet had a full oppor-
tunity of expressing their opinion. I demur, however, to
that fact, and I should contend, if necessary, that they
have had ample opportimity. But in the view of the
noble lord, considering the state of civilisation in India,
and the capacity of the people to judge of the measures of
the Government, it is not at all des'rable to consult the
natives of India upon the question now before the house.
(Hear, hear.) The next admission of the noble lord is that
the inquiry by the committee was protracted beyond the
period expected by those who proposed it. If there were
any doubt on that subject when the noble lord made the
motion, it has been entirely removed by the speech of the
right hon. member for Stamford, who was President of
the Board of Control under the Government of Lord Derby,
and moved the appointment of that committee. The right
hon. gentleman says that at the close of the last session of
Parliament, when the committee was about to separate, he
himself declared that, in his opinion, with reference to the
great question of the home and Indian government, the in-
quiry had been carried to that point where it was possible
to form a correct judgment ; and as far as he was con-
cerned, and the Government which he represented on that
committee, his mind was made up, and he was prepared
on the part of that Government to propose a measure in
the present session of Parliament. The, hon. and learned
gentleman the member for Bath said, somewhat taunt-
ingly, if the case were reversed, and hon. gentlemen oppo-
site sat here, and we sat there, we should proceed in a very
different course. It so happened I attended that com-
mittee, and I believe I was the person who suggested in
the resolution the words, " that the tendency of the evi-
dence was in favour of the government as now constituted,
both at home and in India." I was also of opinion, and
moved an amendment, which was carried, that although the
tendency of the evidence was as then stated, it would not
be prudent to close the inquiry, and that it ought to
be renewed in the present session. I thought it necessary
to move that amendment because I believed the mind of
the President of the Board of Control was so definitively
made up that he was prepared to close the inquiry, and
legislate upon the subject as it then stood. (Hear.) The
noble lord's next admission is, that the witnesses called be-
fore the commt:itee are chiefly servants of the company,
who have left India not to return. Does that invalidate
their testimony ? Quite the contrary. Were they about
to return, it might be said they were more or less in-
fluenced by personal considerations. But here they are,
men who, generally speaking, have won a noble and
honourable independence by services in India, and have
returned to their native land to enjoy that independence ;
their opinions are valuable on account of the knowledge
they have acquired, and trustworthy because they have no
intention to return to the service of the Company. The
next declaration by the noble lord is this : " If you had a
measure ready, I say with Lord Dalhousie, the sooner you
legislate the better." We have a measure ready, and we
propound this measure as the result of the fullest, most
anxious, and most ample consideration. The noble lord
commented rather adversely on our conduct with regard to
Lord Dalhousie's letter. I can only say that, having the
opinion of Lord Dalhousie expressed in the strongest pos-
sible manner, we should have betrayed our trust if we had
not laid before the British Parliament the best means of
forming a judgment of the prudence or danger of delay.
Lord Dalhousie said : " I ask not what your measure is ;
I make no inquiry into that subject ; but I say this—make
up your mind with respect to the course which you ought
to pursue, and having made up your mind, I warn you
there is no safety in any delay." We have prepared our
measure, we have risked everything on it, and the noble
lord says : " If you have a measure ready, the sooner you
legislate the better."
Lord STANLEY—Pardon me. You have rather misun-
derstood what I said. I said I did not know exactly what
were the words employed by Lord Dalhousie, but I appre-
hended they came to nothing more than if a measure were
ready and fit to be carried, the sooner it were carried so
much the better.

Sir J. GRAHAM—He says more than that ; that it is our
duty to propose a measure, and there is no safety in delay.
We propose to legislate immediately, and I understood
the noble lord to say, if we were prepared, he could
not gainsay the advice of Lord Dalhousie. (Hear.) I
again repeat, on the part of the Government, that the de-
claration of Lord Dalhousio was not in answer to any ques-
tion put by any member of the Government, but it was an
opinion which he thought it proper and necessary to con-
vey, and although in no omcial shape, yet coming from so
high a quarter, wo should have failed in our duty if wo
had not acted on it, and acting on it, if wo had not avowed
the authority. (Hear.) The noble lord goes on to say—
" There is no insurrection—there never was any insurrec-
tion, except at Lahore, and the temporary suspension of
legislation never produced any disturbance." I am not
prepared to run the risk—(hear)—and I would remind the
noble lord we never had a suspension of legislation. For 70
years we have had the same system of government invari-
ably renewed before the time of the limited grant expired,
and I think it a dangerous experiment to run the risk of
insurrection—an experiment in which I am not prepared
to recommend the house to concur. (Hear.) Again, the
noble lord said he approved of many of the provisions of
this bill. As far as I can collect from the speech of the
noble lord—a speech remarkable for its perspicuity and
also for its fairness, and which would have been much
more telling if it had been less fair—there are only two or
three of our propositions to which he objects. I will not
press the argument of my right hon. friend the member for
Edinburgh, triumphant as I consider it to be, that all
legislation as to the Home Government is second in im-
portance to that which relates to the Indian Government ;
but I will remark that, in the course of this long debate, I
have not heard any material objections to our proposals
respecting the Indian Government. I certainly have heard
no such objection on the part of the noble lord. What
are the leading propositions? We propose to give a new
character to the Legislative Council, approaching, as near
as possible, to a system of representation. We infuse
new life and vigour by making ex officio members men
of the highest character and station. We give the Go-
vernor-General not only a seat but a voice in the Legis-
lative Council, and it is quite open for consideration
whether the discussions shall be private or not. We
propose to place the armies of the East India Company
under the command of a general officer nominated by her
Majesty. We propose to give a vote to the Crown in the
nomination of the members of council, hitherto exclusively
in the company, and not controlled by the Crown. We
propose to separate from the Governor-General, and place
under a lieutenant-governor, the province of Bengal.
These are some of the great features of the changes which
we propose in the Indian government. They cannot be
said to be slight or unimportant. They are, as I believe,
large and salutary changes—changes sustained by evidence
—changes generally approved--and changes of which no
member of this house has yet expressed his disapprobation.
(Hear, hear.) Well, then, the question mainly refers to
the altaration in the government at home, and I ur der.
stand, with respect to the main provision, the noble lord
does not object to the absence of a fixed term.

Lord STANLEY was understood to say he would prefer
a fixed term.

Sir JAMES GRAHAM—The next point is the change
of patronage, and that is hardly of secondary importance
to the absence of a fixed term. The noble lord willingly
concurs in the principle of competition, but, agreeing, very
much with the late Lord Grenville, he doubts whether
there should not be a reservation in favour of universities
and great seminaries of learning, and a special reservation
in favour of children of civil and military. servants.
(Hear, hear.) At the right time I shall be quite prepared
to go into the question of general competition ; but that
should be in a subsequent stage, there being no reason
why, if the house goes into committee, these proposed
modifications and alterations of the noble lord should not
then bo discussed in the fairest possible spirit. (Hear,
hear.) The third point of detail is the change in the com-
position of the court. That, I admit, is very important—
(hear, hear)—but it is a question of degree, and not
one of principle, and I cannot therefore understand
why on that account the noble lord should refuse going
into committee. Now, sir, the questions which are really
pending in this debate are two, as it appears to me. The
first is the question of delay ; the second is the question
of the double or single government. Both of those are, I
admit, of primary and cardinal importance ; but every-
thing else may be considered secondary to them, these
being, undoubtedly, the points that divide the opinion of
this house. I will apply myself to each of them, and, in
the first place, I will deal with the question of delay.
This, sir, is a question of policy. I have already alluded,
in passing, to the opinion given by Lord Dalhousie on the
point ; but I cannot omit to glance at and recal to your
recollection the considerations which my honourable
friend the Secretary of the Board of Control urged, in the
very able speech which he made in resisting the amend-
ment (Hear.) The subject is an important one under any
circumstances • its gravity and importance are, however,
increased in this case by the circumstances of the moment.
Look around that Indian empire. How is it surrounded ?
(Hear, hear.) In China, we see a serious revolution, of
which, as yet, the ultimate result is uncertain—its more
immediate effects imperfectly developed. There is the
struggle between the Tartar races. We come next to the
war in Burmah. I hope and believe that that contest
is finally concluded, and that the danger, whatever it may
have been in that quarter, has been overcome ; but still
the issue is doubtful ; and I cannot overlook the fact that
we have war overhanging us in a very menacing manner,
and that the state of affairs in the East generally points
to the wisdom of the advice given in another place by the
highest authority where India is concerned (Lord Ellen-
borough), who has said distinctly, within the last six
weeks, that the time has arrived when it became our duty
to put our house in order. (Hear, hear.) We have, in
addition to this, other and most important authorities.
Lord Ellenborough does not advise delay. Then there is
Lord Hardinge, one of the bravest defenders of that
great empire to which he has so largely added by his
conquests—what does he say ? Does Lord Hardinge
counsel delay ? On the contrary, he has told us that time
presses, that time flies, and that, whatever your decision,
you should decide quickly, in addition to deciding wisely.
Such, also, is the opinion of Lord Dalhousie—such
that of Mr. Bird. These are all persons speaking without
reference to party, persons who held posts of high authority
in India. We have also the opinion of the right hon.
member for Stamford (Mr. Berries), the President of the
Board of Control under Lord Derby. So far from differing
with us on this point, or receding from what he held upon
it, and notwithstanding the pain it must have cost him to
differ from the son of the noble lord under whom he held
oflice—(hear, hear)—he thought it contrary to his
.public
duty and inconsistent with his view of what was right in