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

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, JULY 1, 1853.

British sympathy and guided by the genius of British
reform. (Cheers.)
Sir C. WOOD hoped the house would excuse him if he
asked them to descend from the elevation to which they
had been led by the poetic imagination of the hon. gentle-
man, and to turn away from that sight in the wilderness
of India, " leaning on the arm of British sympathy," to
the more practical question whether they were, or whether
they were not, to read a second time the bill for the go-
vernment of India. (Hear.) They were drawing, he
hoped, to the close of this discussion, in which, looking to
the state of the house, not only that night, but on previ-
ous evenings, it would appear that a majority of the house
took but a small interest. (Hear.) He hoped, therefore,
they would be able, before that evening closed, to come
to a division on this most important question. He would
trespass on the patience of the house for a very short time ;
but, holding the position which he had the honour to fill,
there were some observations which he felt it incumbent
upon him to make in answer to statements that had been
brought forward in the course of the debate. (Hear.) It
was remarkable that in the course of this discussion very
little indeed had been said in favour of the motion of the
noble lord the member for Lynn, and still more remarkable
were the diversities of opinion and the contradictory argu-
ments that had been urged in its support. (Hear.) Pro-
bably it was foreseeing this would be the case that led the
noble lord to say the onus of proof lay with the promoters
of the bill ; for, if his motion were to depend upon the
arguments brought forward in its favour, ono set of these
arguments might be made to pair off against the other.
(Hear.) He denied that the onus of proof lay with the
promoters of the bill. It was incumbent on the house to
provide for the future government of India, seeing the
present system of government would come to an end next
year, and the onus of proof, therefore, obviously lay with
those who opposed the natural and ordinary course of pro-
ceeding. (Hear.) The noble lord said that in former
times, when the charter expired, a Suspension Act was
passed—that previously to the expiry of the charter the
Government came forward and provided for the future go-
vernment of India by a temporary measure—[Lord Stan-
ley—l did not say so.] He had only to say that he took
down the words used by the noble lord at the time, and he
added that there was no insurrection in India in conse-
quence. If be did not make this statement, then he must
say that he had grievously misapprehended what fell from
the noble lord on that occasion. The argument of the lion.
member for Montrose was that there ought to be delay in
order that communications should be received from the
Board of Directors. He complained that the Court of
Directors had only very recently been informed of the
nature of this bill, whereas in 1833 a long correspondence
took place previous to the bill being introduced. But the
question was now very different from what it was in 1833.
The act passed in that year involved an interference with
the privileges of the East India Company as a commercial
body, and with their interests as traders, and a consider-
able time was required to enable them to wind up the
commercial concern. But now there was nothing of that
kind. They were merely trustees for the government of
India, and it rested with the house to say in whose hands
the government of India should be placed for the future,
and what the nature of that government should be. The
hon. member for Montrose said, he considered it of im-
portance to wait for evidence from India, whereas the
noble lord, on the contrary, said he attached little or no
weight to the evidence that might be derived from India.
(Hear.) He had listened with the greatest attention to the
speeches which had been delivered in the course of that
evening as well as on previous occasions, and had heard a
great deal of detail, and many opinions given, as to the
various modes in which the government of India should be
conducted, both at home and abroad. Among others the
right bon. gentleman, the President of the Board of Con-
trol, went into considerable detail with regard to the mode
in which he would govern India ; but not a single word
had been urged as a reason why they should delay proceed-
ing with this bill. (Hear.) There had been proposed
various amendments to clauses of the bill, but little or no
argument had been adduced in favour of delaying the bill
itself. The only real argument ho had heard urged in
favour of delay was that brought forward the other evening
by the hon. member for Manchester, who gave a reason,
which, whether good or bad, was at least intelligible, and
he was supported in it by the hon. member for Richmond.
The argument amounted to this,—" Give us two years'
delay that we may agitate to pull down the East India
Company. (Hear, hear.) Now, this might be a reasonable
enough argument on the part of those who wished to pull
down the East India Company, but the hon. member for
Montrose, who wished to keep up the company, neverthe-
less joined the hon. member for Manchester in asking for
delay—the object of the one being to pull down, and of
the other to keep up the East India Company, (Hear,
hear.) Now, that those who thought the government of
India nearly perfect, and wished to perpetuate it, and
those who attributed to that government every abuse
that occurred in India, should both unite in wishing
for delay, seemed to him to be the most contradictory
kind of support that could be given to any pro-
position. (Hear, hear.) It did not seem to him
that agitation was the proper mode of settling a question
of this importance. To decide what the future govern-
ment of India should be was a question second to none
that could be brought forward, and it was one that re-
quired the calm and deliberate consideration of that house.
(Hear, hear.) He trusted, therefore, the house would not
be led away from the fair and full consideration of this
question on the ground of an appeal to public opinion.
(Hear.) Such was not the proper mode of obtaining the
calm and deliberate judgment of that house, and he hoped
they would not jeopordize those important interests that
were at stake by refusing to deal with the question as it
now came before them. (Hear, hear.) The ground on
which the hon. members for Manchester and Richmond
desired delay was, that the subject might be submitted to
public opinion, and they seemed to consider that that
public opinion, agitated by such speeches as had been de-
livered on this question, would be the best mode of settling
the whole controversy. He did not think, however, that
that would be the wisest mode of determining a question
of such importance as .the future government of India ;
and he believed a majority of that house would see the
propriety of not giving in to such a proposal merely in
order that the system of governing India might be pulled
down by agitation. (Hear, hear.) Reference had been
made to an expression which he quoted from Mr. Mill,
that enlightened public opinion was the best security for
good government. To that opinion he subscribed, but he
believed that unenlightened public opinion was the worst
authority to which they could appeal ; and he must say
that if public opinion was to be enlightened by such state-
ments as were made in that house on this subject, it would
be very greatly misled indeed. (Hear, hear.) He must
say that the misstatements that had been made, embracing,
as they did, every prejudice that could be excited against
those who administered the government of India, exceeded
anything that he over remembered to have been made in
that house. (Hear.) The hon. member for Manchester
told them, the other night, that a report on public works,
which had been received in this country, had not been laid
on the table of the house, and then he imputed to the East
India Company the most unworthy motives for withhold-
ing such a report from the house. Now, he thought the
hon. gentleman might have had the charity to suppose
that the company were not actuated by any improper
motives ; and, if he had referred to the votes of the
house, he would have found that the report in question
was laid on the table in August last, and that his
complaint was entirely without foundation. (Hear, hear.)
Then the hon. gentleman (Mr. Blackett), on a former oc-
casion, stated that a report on territorial aggrandisement
(as we understood) had not been laid on the table of the
house. [Mr. Blackett here gave an explanation of his
statement.] The hon. gentleman was bound to ascertain
from the best possible authority what the fact was, and if
he had referred to the votes he would have found that on
the 14th of May that report was laid on the table of the
house. (Hear, hear.) Then, in taking his information
from the appendix to the committee's report, his hon. friend
had made what he must call as ludicrous a mistake as it
was possible to make. In giving an account of the out-
standing arrears of rent for 20 years the amount of arrears
was stated at the end of each year ; but his hon. friend
had added the outstanding balance at the end of each con-
secutive year, and then came down to the house and said
the sum of the whole was the amount due from the land
revenue of India that had failed to be collected. (A laugh.)
They had heard a great deal about the salt duty, and more
than one gentleman had referred to the diminished con-
sumption of salt as a proof of the miserable condition of
the people of India. An hon. gentleman quoted from an
Indian newspaper a statement to the effect that there had
been a great falling off in the consumption of salt, but he
did not take the trouble to refer to the next number of
the same newspaper, which stated that an unwitting mis-
take had been made to the extent of 40,000 tons. (Hear,
hear.) But the great mistake committed was taking the
revenue as a criterion of the falling off of the consumption,
totally forgetting in the comparison which had been made
of one period with another, the fact that in the meantime
the duty had been reduced. In Madras, where there was
no reduction of duty, the revenue had increased ; in Bom-
bay it had also increased; but in Bengal there had been a
reduction of 5 per cent. in the duty, and the amount of
revenue showed a diminution. (Hear.) The hon. member
for Sunderland spoke of the miserable condition of India
and of the consequent impossibility of the people taking
so many of our goods as other countries did. But the hon.
gentleman forgot that there was a considerable domestic
manufacture in India, and that if we sent manufactured
goods there we displaced, to a great extent, the domestic
manufacture of that country. To suppose, therefore, that
our manufactures should go there and increase, as in Bra -
zil and elsewhere, was to show a total disregard of that
which must necessarily be the state of the exchanges.
Notwithstanding this, however, within the last 10 or 20
years our exports to India had increased far more in pro-
portion than the total exports of this country.. To India
they had increased about 112 per cent., while the total
exports had increased in nothing like proportion. Then
the hon. gentleman referred to a quarrel between a couple
of zemindars which was fought out with spirit, and a
policeman who was looking on never interfered to prevent
it. This the hon. gentleman quoted as a proof of the won-
derful deterioration which had taken place under our rule
in India. Well, he was sorry that that should have taken
place, but he had heard in this country of the inefficiency
of parish constables and of faction fights in Ireland which
had not been interrupted, yet he had never heard such
things alleged as reasons for altering the whole of our con-
stitution, and abolishing the system of King, Lords, and
Commons. But, supposing it to be true, even to a greater
extent than the hon. gentleman alleged, was it or was it
not an improvement on that state of things when they
were exposed to a troop of Sikh horsemen dashing over the
whole country and plundering every village? He certainly
felt justified in saying that whatever external war there
might have been, internal war and dissension had entirely
given way under the dominion of British rule in India.
(Hear.) The hon. gentleman had read some account of the
miserable state of the ryots iu Bengal from, he believed,
the Calcutta Review. But if the hon. gentleman would
turn to the pages of the Quarterly Review, or to Black-
wood, he had a very strong impression he would find
descriptions of the miseries of this country—of deserted
homesteads, and all the rest of it—owing to free trade and
the abolition of the corn laws, quite as harrowing as any
which he had quoted. If he went no further even than the
speeches of the hon. and learned member for Suffolk, not
more than six months ago, he would find accounts of
misery in this country quite as appalling as that which he
had read of the state of the ryots in Bengal. (Hear.) After
all, too, that misery existed under the system which the
hon. member for Manchester recommended. That hon.
member always confined his indignation to their not esta-
blishing a system of landowners in India similar to that
which existed under the permanent system of Bengal. Yet
it was under that permanent system, so created, that
the misery existed of which he had read an account,
and which was to he attributed, not to the exac-

time of the Government, but to the exactions and extor-
tions of those landowners of whom the hon. gentleman
so highly approved. The hon. member for Manchester
referred to some evidence which he said had been
taken before the committee, though it had not been re-
ported, depicting the miserable state of the inhabitants of
Bengal. At all events, there had been one witness who, in
the strongest language and with the utmost fervour, had
contrasted the condition of tke people in the British do-
minions in India with that of those who were still under
native rule. The hon. member for Sunderland went at
some length into the state of the revenue of India, and
described it as all but bankrupt. He (Sir C. Wood) should
not have thought it necessary to take much notice of that,
except that statements of the kind, if allowed to pass un-
contradicted in that house, might alarm the people of
India, or those who depended for their incomes upon the
interest of the Indian debt. He would state, therefore,
how little foundation there was for the apprehensions in
which the hon. gentleman had indulged, and which had
been sanctioned also by the hon. member for the West
Riding. It was perfectly true, that since the last charter
India had been engaged in a very considerable and expen-
sive war, and no doubt a great addition had been made to
the debt in that period ; but the whole Indian debt at
this moment was less than two year's revenue of India,
and that, certainly, looking to what we were accustomed
to in Europe, was no very formidable amount. The in-
crease in the debt, since 1833, was about 500,0001. per
annum, while the increased land revenue from the same
territory was upwards of 2,000,0001. per annum. The
additional charge, therefore, was one-fifth of the additional
income, independently of the income of the newterritories,
which amounted to about 1,500,0001, more. The hon.
gentleman had corrected him when, on a previous evening,
he stated the Indian revenue at 26,000,0001, He (Sir
C. Wood) knew at the time, however, that he was
rather understating than overstating it. On looking
at the returns of the last three years he found that
the revenue in 1850-51 was 27,000,000/. ; in 1851-52,
28,000,0001. ; and in 1852-53, 29,000,000/. In 1849-50 there
was a surplus of 364,0001. ; in 1850-51 a surplus 0f415,000/.;
in 1851-52 a deficiency of 469,0001.; and in 1852-53, paying
the probable expenses of the Burmese war, a surplus of
544,0001. With an income, then, increasing at the rate of
1,000,0001. per annum in the last three years, with in three
years out of four a surplus, and with the whole debt less
than two years' income, he could not say that such a state
of the finances ought to inspire them with very great alarm
of total and immediate bankruptcy. (Hear, hear.) There
was another remarkable statementas to our acquisitions in
Scinde. An able officer had the command there. He had
taken up his quarters at a small mud port, with very few
inhabitants. The exertions of that officer, in laying out
roads, and promoting irrigation, had been such that that
place was now a flourishing town with 10,000 inhabitants.
That was the manner in which the country had been im-
proved under our rule, and so much for the accuracy of the
statements which were made, to prove the inefficiency of
the present system of government, which, nevertheless, the
hon. gentleman who had attacked it, wished to preserve
by supporting the motion of the noble lord for delay. He
confessed that he thought every argument which had been
used tended in favour of the second reading of the bill, and
against delay. They had not the least impugned the
authority of the Earl of Dalhousie's opinion, which had not
been given in answer to any leading question from him (Sir
C. Wood), and which he thought therefore, was entitled
to the greater weight, but they had referred to the opinion
of the editor of the Friend of India. Now he would read
one short extract from the letter which that gentleman had
addressed to Mr. Bright on the subject of delay. That
gentleman knew what had taken place in that house, what
the arguments both for and against delay were, and this
was his deliberate opinion :
" I will venture to assert, after witnessing the mode in
which the Indian campaign has opened in Parliament, that
nothing could be more disastrous for India than to prolong
this agitation' for two years, during which the intelligent
natives' would be led, however erroneously, to imagine that
their representations would be welcome to their friends in

England in exact proportion to their virulence and unscrup ul-
- Two years of such unhealthy agitation, by raising
hopes which must be disappointed, and fostering a spirit
of disaffection to the British Government, might even tend
to shake the principle of loyal obedience in the native com-
munity."

(Hear, hear.) He trusted that those who were not pre-
pared to trifle with this great question, but who had regard
to the safety of that empire, would take that opinion of a
person who was competent to give an opinion, if any one
was, and who was quite independent of the Government,
and would not be led away into supporting a motion for
delay from which no possible good, but much mischief, was
likely to arise. One of the first objections which had been
taken to the bill was that it was enacted for no fixed term,
and upon that question of the effect of their being no
fixed term nothing could be more absurdly contra-
dictory than the opinions which had been given by the
various members who had spoken. The noble lord said,
that the measure of the Government was clearly an
experimental one; the hon. member for Montrose said that
it was merely a provisional one, and the hon. member for
Manchester said that it was more permanent than a lease
for 20 years. It was difficult to answer arguments on both
sides. If they would only tell off one against the other he
should show where he stood; but really the mode in which
the hon. gentleman who had argued it contradicted them-
selves on this question was quite ridiculous. The noble
lord thought that one great advantage in a term was, that
the attention of the country became at that period concen-
trod upon India, and they then must legislate, whatever
were the circumstances. Was that the best mode of ar-
riving at a deliberate conclusion upon a matter of this na-
ture, determining that, whatever the circumstances, whe-
ther there were war or what not, they must deal with a
question of that vital importance ? The hon. member for
Montrose said, that they proposed a " provisional govern-
ment." Why, they proposed to place the Government of
India upon the same footing as the Government of this
country. Was the Government of this country provisional?
The hon. member for Elginshire said that they were putting
it upon a footing so fluctuating and insecure that it de-
pended upon the " Aye" or "No " of that house. Was
that putting it upon the footing of this country ? When
they placed the Government of India upon the same footing
as the Government of this country, as the Government of
our colonies, and of everything else which we possessed,he
could not think that they were open to the charge of putting
it upon a fluctuating and unstable basis. (Hear.) The
hon. member for Montrose had certainly used an extraordi-
nary argument for him, for he had advocated the exploded
doctrine of finality, and had stated as his objection to the
measure that it was one which might be altered and amended
as time and circumstances mightrequire. Such an argument
to come from so ardent a reformer as his hon. friend he
confessed he had never yet heard. He had heard many
declamations against finality, but such a bold assertion in
favour of it he had never heard in that house or elsewhere.
What said the noble lord? He said that this measure was

" So obviously experimental that it was left open to altera-
tion from year to year. It would have been better to come
forward with a well-considered plan, and to say, Here is a
constitution for India; be it good, be it bad—let it have a
fair trial.' "
That was exactly what the Government did. Here was a
measure which they considered to be the best that they could
give. In their opinion it was the most wise and prudent
that they could adopt. They believed it to be good; and if
good, they believed it would be permanent • but if expe-
rience should prove it to be bad, and if it should not an-
swer their expectations, it might be altered as time and
circumstances might require. Were they to be told, then,
that it was an objection to any measure for the government
of any country that those who proposed it believed it to be
the best they could propose, but that if time and circum-
stances, showed amendments to be necessary, they would
not be deterred from amending it by any doctrine of
finality such as was proposed by the hon. member for Mon-
trose ? Several hon. gentlemen had referred to the opinions
of natives of India, but the natives appeared to have come
to a much wiser conclusion than the hon. gentlemen who
attached such importance to their views ; for since the dis-
cussion of the present question a second petition had come
home from the Native Bombay Association, and this was
the opinion which they expressed with regard to a term of
years :
" Your petitioners, not foreseeing the chance of arousing
the interest and attention now bestowed on Indian affairs,
petitioned your hon. house to limit the period of existence of
any future Government of India to 10 years; but your peti-
tioners are now emboldened to ask your hon. house not to
debar them for any period of years from requesting a revision
of what may be injurious in the coming India legislation. It
is simply necessary to pass an act providing for the best form
of government both in England and in India, without limiting
its duration to any number of years—an act which, like any
other statute, might, if deemed requisite, be modified, altered,
or repealed, as occasion might require. It cannot be neces-
sary to embrace all the subjects involved in the discussion of
Indian affairs in one act ; and the constitution of the home
Government, the constitution and powers of the several local
governments, the construction of a new judicial service, and
each independent branch of inquiry, if made the subject of
separate legislation, would, in all probability, receive more
careful attention, and be more satisfactorily disposed of than
if the entire mass of Indian information be gathered together
in one, and thrown into a single enactment."
That was exactly the course which they were taking. They
proposed a bill for the government of India, not embracing
the whole Indian question in one act—one which, if it
answered their expectations, would be permanent, and, if
not, might be altered as circumstances required. He did
not think that he need make any observations upon the
subject of patronage. The noble lord said, that he entirely
concurred in the principle of admission by competition. The
noble lord, indeed, suggested some alteration in the mode of
regulating that, and all he (Sir C. Wood) could say was,
that there was nothing in the bill which prevented the
consideration of those points in committee, The last
question upon which the noble lord had given an opinion
was as to the form of the home government ; and it must
be observed that, not only was the noble lord himself in
favour of a double government, but that scarcely any one
in the house had advocated a single government. The
noble lord said that the double government ought to be re-
formed, and that the Board of Control should be a consti-
tuent part of the government of India. His hon. friend
the member for the West Riding had quoted Mr. Halli-
day's opinion, but he had not exactly quoted that gentle-
man's words, but had made him say that the double form
of government, was exceedingly bad and mischievous.
What Mr. Halliday had said was :
" I have a very high opinion of the mode in which the go.
vernment of India has been conducted in all its branches.

. . . . I would recommend nothing like organic change,
nor anything beyond careful and even, I may say, experi-
mental alteration at present, in a matter of such very great
importance."
To substitute a single for a double government, however,
would be an " organic change" of a most radical descrip-
tion. In the course of the present discussion it had been
said to them tauntingly, " You contend everything is so He was not aware
good, why do you change anything?'
that he said everything was good, or that he had not ad-
mitted that many things. had been ill done, and many
others omitted to be done in India. Still, he had thought
it right to defend the government of India from the indis-
criminate charges which had been made against it ; and
he asked, was it not wise to make use of the Court of Di-
rectors, a body which did and must exist for the next 20
years, and against whose administration, so far as they had
a share in the administration, no case of gross mismanage-
ment had been proved. Almost every witness who had
been before the committee, whether connected with the
Court of Directors or not, had pointed out as the great
fault of the constitution of the Court, that the necessity of
a long and tedious canvass had deterred the best Indian
servants from coming forward as candidates for a seat at
the direction. That was the evidence given by Mr. Shep-
herd, one of the ablest directors of the Court, by Sir H.
Maddock, by Mr. Willoughby, by Colonel Sykes, by
Lord Ellenborough, by Lord Hardinge, by Mr. Melvin,
by Mr. Bird, by Mr. Robertson, and by Mr. Mill, every
one of whom had great experience, and spoke with
much authority upon such a question. That blot the
present bill endeavoured to remedy by the Govern-
ment placing in the court six experienced Indian servants.
These, some might say, ought to be elected by the Court
of Directors and approved by the Crown. The Govern-
ment thought that they ought to be nominated by the
Crown, but this again was a question which ought to be

discussed in committee. There was another very important
portion of this question which was the changes that were
proposed to be made in the Government—not at home, but
in India. He entirely concurred in the statement that
India must be governed in India, and that what we did at
home was of far less importance than what was done
there. The hon. member for the county of Elgin said that
he would confine the changes to the home Government,
because with that they were acquainted, while they knew
nothing of the Government in India.
Mr. C. BRUCE.—I did not say that we knew nothing
of the Government of India, but that we should have the
opinion of the Governor-General, and of the local gover-
nors, before altering the system there.
Sir C. WOOD continued—He had already stated that
he had the opinion of the Earl of Dalhousie, and that
the bill had been framed in accordance with that opinion.
He had had also the opinion of persons connected with the
Government of India, and he did not know that they
should gain anything by sending the bill back again. The
changes which they proposed were in entire accordance
with the whole of the evidence. The bill had now been in
th hands of members a considerable time, and he had not
heard any material objection made to one single change
that was proposed in the government of India. With re-
gard to a complete code of laws, none had been drawn up
in a complete shape. One had been prepared by his right
hon. friend the member for Edinburgh, which was now
under the consideration of the Legislative Council in India,
who were trying whether they could pass it into a law.
The hon. gentleman had found great fault with the Govern-
ment for disregordiug the opinion of Sir E. Ryan and other
great law reformers ; but if the hon. gentleman had entered
into the subject with big usual care, or had listened to his
(Sir C. Wood's) opening statement, he would have known
that the commission to be appointed in India was at the
suggestion of those very gentlemen ; and the most ardent
Indian law reformers were to be upon that commission,
and that it was in deference to their opinion that
he had been obliged to postpone the bill for im-
proving the judicature in India. (Cries of Divide.)
The groat evil of having one legislative system for one part
of India, and a different system for another part of the
same country, could only be obviated by constituting one
legislative body for the whole of India. He would not go
further into these matters, though he must say they were
questions of a most important nature. (Hear, hear.) He
would only say, that no objection having been raised to the
measure which might not fairly and properly be discussed
in committee, it did not appear to him that any sound
argument had been urged against the second reading of the
bill. He thought if they were to deal with the question
as the noble lord opposite proposed, they would be merely
trifling with a most important subject—with the welfare,
and possibly with the security, of the empire in India.
That empire was of a most anomalous and extraordinary
description. If well governed it might be one of the
strongest empires in existence; while, if ill-governed, no
one could deny that its position might be most critical.
Now, what were the measures taken by her Majesty's
Ministers for promoting the good government of India ?
They had adopted, with regard to Indian government, all
the suggestions of the most experienced Indian servants,
which they thought calculated to provide for the security
of our Indian empire. Lord Ellenborough had told them
that they held the empire of India by the superiority of
mind and intellect possessed by the persons whom they
sent out to govern that empire, and Her Majesty's Govern-
ment endeavoured, by their proposals with regard to the
system of education, to improve still further the mental
superiority of the persons employed in the public service
in India. They had also been told that their power in
India depended in a great measure upon the conviction of
the people that they were better governed under the sway
of the British than they would be under native rulers.
That there were defects in the system of Indian govern-
ment he was willing to admit. These defects Her Majesty's
Ministers bad taken the best means in their power to deal
with, and he did not know any defect for which this bill
did not endeavour to provide a remedy. The questions re-
lating to land tenures, improvements in public works, and
other matters, were subjects which could not be dealt with
here, but which must be dealt with in India • and Her
Majesty's Government had, in this bill, proposed esta-
blishment of machinery which they thought best calculated
to promote in this respect the welfare of that important
empire. (Cheers.)

Mr. DISRAELI—The right hon. gentleman who has just
sat down has complained of the imaginative powers of the
hon. member who preceded him, but he has himself shown
that even in that respect he can successfully complete with
the hon. member for Sunderland—(a laugh), for the right
hon. gentleman seems to me in his reply to have answered
several speeches which have not been delivered—(hear, and
a laugh), and the consequence has been that hon. gentle.
men on both sides of the house have interrupted him in
the course of his statements. It will be my lot, in the
observations I shall presume to offer to the house, to have
to comment upon some statements which have been pre-
viously made, but I shall endeavour to make those remarks
in so fair a spirit, that I trust at least I shall not call for
the interference of any hon. gentleman until i have re-
sumed my seat. I can assure the house that, in endea-
vouring to consider the all-important subject before us, I
hope to imitate that temperate spirit which characterised
the statesmanlike speech in which the amendment now
before us was introduced to onr notice by the noble lord.
(Hear, hear.) I agree with the First Lord of the Admi-
ralty, in remarking with satisfaction the many intimations
that have been given during this debate of a desire on
both sides of the house to come to the consideration of
this subject in a calm and unimpassioned spirit—(hear,
hear) ; but at the same time I must take the liberty of
observing that I cannot but feel that hon. gentlemen, in
intending to express so laudable a disposition, have, I
think, been somewhat inadvertently betrayed into re-
marks which may lead to very inconvenient, very disagree-
able, and even very dangerous misconceptions. We have
been told frequently during the debate that this is not a
party question, as if a party question were necessarily
an improper question. (Hear, hear.) We have been told
frequently during the debate that this subject is not
considered in a party spirit, as if a subject considered
in a party spirit were necessarily considered in a partial
and unjust spirit. (Hear, hear.) Now, Sir, as we are
all of us members of that which is a house of party, and
which, if it were not a house of party, you may depend
upon it would not long exist in this country, I think this
is a point upon which there should be clearer conceptions
than at present appear to prevail in this assembly. I con-
sider purely party questions are questions which concern
the distinctive principles of the two great parties into
which a popular assembly is necessarily divided. Aristo-
cracy or democracy—protection or unrestricted competi-
tion—an endowed and established church, or complete
dependence on the volUntary system—these are principles
perfectly distinct : they are professed by different parties,
they are are party principles, and, if brought into discus-
sion, such discussions are debates upon purely party
questions. But it is taking a very limited view of a party
question to bound it merely by the description upon which
I have ventured. Hitherto it has been supposed that
when any great legislative difficulty has been brought
under the consideration of Parliament, there has been
a noble and generous emulation between the two par-
ties of the country which should solve the difficulty
in the most satisfactory manner, and—when a question of
controverted policy arises—which should recommend the
course most for the honour of the country and most for
the advantage and welfare of the people. (Elear, hear.)
Sharing these views, I confess that I cannot under-
stand how a great party in this house can take refuge
in some neutrality upon a subject like that now heft)] e
us, and shrink from expressing without the slightest
equivocation the views which they entertain. (Hear, bear.)
If we approve the proposition of her Majesty's Ministers,
we are bound, in my mind, to give to that proposition not
only our support, but our cordial and complete support.
If, on the other hand, we believe that it is a course of a
very questionable character,—if, further, we believe that
it may lead to disastrous results, I deny that it is in our
power to refrain from expressing onr opinion. I say that
we owe it to our constituents—to those who sent us
here—(loud cheers from the Opposition benches)—we owe
it to the country, we owe it even to ourselves, fairly
to place before Parliament and the country the rea-
sons why we differ from the course recommended
by the Government, and to give Parliament and the
country an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon the
two policies submitted for their consideration. (Cheers.)
I know I may be told that a party government leads to
great excesses. It is my opinion that the excesses of party
government are not greater—perhaps not so great as tie
excesses which are experienced under despotic govert•
ments ; but, for my own part, I prefer the excesses cf
even of party government to the excesses of despotic go-
vernments—(cheers)—and I believe we shall find in th's
country that the more enlightened it becomes, the greater
and more powerful will be the check of party excess in the
common sense of this house, and in the influence of that
omnipotent opinion, the power of which we all recognize.
Well, I say, then, entertaining these views, that I feel it
is absolutely necessary that I should frankly express my
opinions upon the subject now under consideration. I
have made these observations because I have the mis-
fortune to differ on this question from many gentlemen
whom I greatly respect, with whom I act in political con-
nexion, and for many of whom I entertain great personal
regard ; but, for my own part, I cannot incur the respon-
sibility of giving my approbation to the measure which
the right hon. gentleman bas submitted to our notice. The
consequences of that measure will sooner or later be before
us. Even if this government which we are now planning
lasts for that space of 20 years which has been so often
adverted to, there are many now present who will pro-
bably be present when that period has terminated. I
may probably not be here ; it is not impossible I may be
here ; but there are many gentlemen on this side the
house—young men, who are devoting their time and
talents to the service of their country—who at that period
will probably still be taking an active part in public trans-
actions ; and when that time comes I should be very sorry
that they should refer to the debates of the year 1853
(hear, hear)—and regret that they were so wanting in
sagacity or moral courage that, because party incon-
venience might accrue (cheers from the Opposition)—
they shrank from expressing an opinion upon one of
the most important subjects that can engage the at-
tention of Parliament. (Loud cheers.) There has been
some controversy during this debate as to the
exact subject which is under discussion. The Secre-
trary of the Board of Control accused my noble friend
(Lord Stanley) of introducing a second subject into our
debate. Now, it appears to me that that was an observa-
tion—a criticism on the part of the Secretary of the Board
of Control, which was not well founded. It seems to me
that there can be no mistake whatever as to the question
which is before us. It appears to me that the question is
accurately, completely, and precisely expressed in the title
of the bill on the table of the house. What is the title of
that bill ? It is, " A Bill to Provide for the Government
of India ;" and an amendment has been moved, which, in
fact, says that this plan to provide for the government of
India, while it disturbs much, really settles nothing—
(cheers from the Opposition benches)—and that, if such
be the case, considering that a Parliamentary committee
has bean sitting for years to investigate the condition of
India, but has not at this moment half fulfilled its duties
—(cheers and laughter)—it is expedient that we should
wait for the increased information to be gained from the
inquiries of that committee, and that, considering the late
peri xl of the session, we should continue the existing act
for the government of India, and hesitate before Ive pace a

precipitate proposition, the consequences of which, we
believe, are not adequate to meet the necessities of the
case. (Hear, hear.) Now, that is the question before us.
(Cheers.) A plan for the government of India is proposed
by her Majesty's Ministers. We join issue on the point
that it is not an adequate and sufficient plan—(cheers)--
and we say that, in consequence of •the lateness of 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—as some-
thing dangerous to England and dangerous to India—(hear,
hear)—as a weapon borrowed from the enemy, as an arrow
from the quiver of Indian reformers—(a laugh)- as a
course unheard of, not to be tolerated without
authority, and certainly likely to produce conse-
quences which must be deprecated. Now, in the first
place, is it an unprecedented course ? There has been
come talk of the term of two years being allotted to a con-
tinuance bill of the present act, and some hon. gentlemen
have argued as if it were proposed that two years 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 fruits of tLe
Parliamentary investigation, should take advantage of
their autumnal recess (a laugh); that they should mature
a bill which probably both houses of Parliament would
approve (cheers) ; that they should introduce that bill to
our notice the moment Parliament met in February ; and
it would probably be passed in a month, and receive the
Royal assent before the existing act expired. (Cheers.)
That is what we propose; that is what we wish; and that
is considered an unprecedented proposition. (Hear, hear.)
Let us see if it is an unprecedented proposition. Tho go-
vernment of India has been a question submitted to the
Parliament of England twice during the present century—
in 1813 and again in 1833. Now, what occurred in 1813 ?
It had long been among thoughtful statesmen a subject of
great lamentation and regret that, by a combination of
peculiar circumstances, Parliament had ever been called
upon to legislate for India in a hurried and precipitate
manner. I could quote—if, at this time of night, and
having some other remarks to make, I could presume to
quote—l could quote the opinions of some of the gravest
statesmen and the greatest warriors to that effect ; but
the authority to which I am going to refer is one which,
at least, will not be questioned by a considerable portion
of her Majesty's Government. Late in the session of
1813—in the month of June—a bill for the government
of India was introduced into the House of Lords ; and
what wasthe course taken by no less a personage than Lord
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. (Cheers from
the Opposition.) The system of discussing Indian subjects,
and the most important of all Indian subjects—the govern-
ment of India—at the fag end of the session, ought no
longer to be tolerated. (Cheers.) I recommend that it
continuance bill of the existing act should be passed, and
that Ministers, the Parliament, and the country, should
have the intervening space to consider of a measure ade-
quate to the occasion." (Hear, hear.) But was Lord
Grey alone in his opinion on that occasion ? lam speak-
ing, remember, of the first occasion when Parliament was
called upon to consider this subject during the present
century. lam 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 superioka
perhaps, to any man of his time, and far in advance
of the majority of the community—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
iu the month of June hurriedly to discuss a subject so im-
portant in its nature. He entirely agreed, he said, with
Lord Grey ; but be did more. He delivered an indignant
protest against the policy recommended 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. Ido 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 iaonth of June to see us pursue, but this is a harder
age than in 1813; and I suspect Ministers will find a legi-
timate but prolonged opposition to this measure. Now,
what happened in 1833 ? Mind, lam 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 wo
have for the course we are taking. I respect authority as
much as any man in this house. Ido 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 *hat 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 interval, on all the great
questions which, in resistance to his advice, they had included
in the bill of 1833. Well, Orin, the coarse which Lord Grey
and Lord Granville 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. lam
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 Omit which were
urged in 1833? Why do we hoar 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 becomes the Parliament to consider the (fa's-
tion. (Hear, hear.) Well, but we have still, although it
may be imperfect, a great body of evidence before us. Wo
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 Nears • they do not tell you that the native
do not tell you that the condition of the
population of flu" is a wealthy
popu-
lation; they and thriving
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--(lo 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 a
which springs from knowledge, and to give us the means of
forming an opinion—I hope not a prejudiced opinion—on
the subject, and the result is that there rsmain in 1853
the same complaints on the great cardinal points na 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 wore 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 Parilaiiient'and the
people of this country take no interest in this question t
(ROTS low) If they really do take Ito interest in

:~

wSl'll'l4.l*

' -1 1,
. _ 1,:
~
'_,; - ::--,:. .fI::14
. ..4-..,- ft,
rgt-,,--‘-: \----:-
-' • A _
N, .