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

a matter of this kind to oppose the Government, and he
said that we were rightin legislating at once. What then,
was the opinion of Sir John Hobhouse, being connected
with the government of British India? What is the 'opi-
nion of Lord Panmure, who, though connected with it for
a shorter time, is still conversant with its affairs. That
opinion was stated to the house explicitly. You have,
then, the opinion against delay of Governors-General of
India, of Presidents of the Board of Control—you have
now in his place the hon. member for Huntingdon (Mr.
Baring), the chairman of the committee of inquiry; and he,
who spared no pains exemplarily, to fulfil that office, has
i 3 this house made a speech which it is impossible any
member can have heard without noticing the impressive
manner in which it told of the honest conviction produced
on the hon. member's mind by the evidence brought before
the Committee, warned the house of the danger of delay,
and exhorted the house, by its desire to serve the public,
to ward off perils mightily affecting the empire, and to
legislate without hesitation. (Hear.) Now, sir, these
are matters of authority. I would for one moment glance
at what appears equally strong, that is, the matter of rea-
son. It must never be forgotten how slender in point of
force is our tenure of empire in India. We must recollect
always that it is mainly an empire of opinion. Ours is
not numerical strength, but our position we owe to the
confidence of the country in the permanence of our rule,
the steadiness of our government, and the firmness of the
hand that grasps it. (Cheers.) By shaking that confidence
you disturb the very foundations of our Indian empire.
Is it wise wantonly to disturb them. (Hear, hear.) Let
me intreat of you to consider the position of th 3 Govern-
ment which makes this proposition. If we had consulted
our ease—if we had consuited our party interest—if
we had consulted even the convenience of the house, which
every Government under representative institutions is
bound to consider—can you suppose that wo should have
been desirous of forcing upon you such important legisla-
tion at this time ? We had before us the prospect of a di-
vision from, or among, our friends ; and it was painful to
differ from any members who had given us a general sup-
port—we were incurring the risk of opposition, joined to
theirs, from our more usual opponents. I ask, then, could
anything but a most paramount sense of public duty have
at such a time, and under such circumstances, induced any
Administration to incur the risk of bringing such a propo-
sition before Parliament ? I protest that. if ever there was
a decision taken from conscientious motives and from a con-
scientious desire for the public good, that is the decision at
which we have arrived, and to which we invite you. I will
now turn to the second question—that of the double go-
vernment. Upon this point I admit that the directors of
the East India Company, acting in concert with her Ma-
jesty's Government in governing India is an anomaly, but
then, I say, are we not surrounded by anomalies in respect
to our Indian empire ? Is not our position in India the
greatest of all anomalies ? In our own representative sys-
tem, too, are there not anomalies ? It is a system of check
and Counter-check—the balance of power, surely, is not in
principle objected to by the British Legislature. As I con-
tend, you have the full advantage of the longest experi-
ence, an experience of seventy years, in favour of this mode
of governing India. But then we are charged with caution
and timidity in our course. That objection has been made
more particularly by the hon. member for Bath (Mr.
Phion). Perhaps it may be alleged against me and some
of my colleagues that innovation in the abstract has no
great terror for us. (Laughter.) We have innovated ; per-
haps we may innovate again. But I say it is incum-
bent on all innovators to show the necessity of their pro-
posed innovation ; the onus of proof in all cases falls on
those who ask for change ; and in this case, on the same
same principle, those who ask for more than we, must
prove the existence of the necessity which gives them a
claim to be heard on their demand. The government of
that country is held by us on a certain footing ; we try our
ground, feel our way, in altering our relations to it. Pro-
ceeding prudently and cautiously, we propose to apply
remedies for wl'ich we do not even claim that they are
theoretically perfect, but which we believe are all that are
at present shown to be practically. necessary. (Hear.) We
might go further; but in my opinion those who urge ors
doing so are bound to show the absolute necessity of the
steps that they advise, and the changes they wish us to
make. The noble lord (Lord Stanley) made a most impor-
tant admission applicable to the point. He said the tree
must be tried by its fruits. I am perfectly willing to rest
the whole question on that issue. On the whole, then, has
or has not this double government worked we"? What says
the evidence? The noble lord, indeed, rejects Indian opi-
nion—native opinion; but what more evidence wor'd you
get if you sat a longer time ? The hon. member for the
West Riding (Mr. Cobden) talked of wishing to cross-ex-
amine every member of this house. Every person in this
country capable of giving advice in this matter has been
called before the committee, and has been already examined.
You have already three Governors-General—you have
Lord Ellenborough, Lord Hardinge, and Mr. B''-d, Of
civil servants of the company, you have the names of Sir
George Clerk,Willoughby, Prinsep, Marshman, Trevelyan,
Halliday; and, in addition to these, you have the name of
a man second in ability to none in this country in any de-
partment, and who enjoyed the longest experience, Mr.
Mill. I have not myself had the advantage of sersing on ,
the committee this session, but I attended regularly diming
last session, and the concurrence of testimony then, I well
remember, on this issue of judging the tree by its fruits,
was remarkably in favour, on the whole, of the good
government of India. The honourable member for the
West Riding began his speech by referring to Mr. Marsh-
man. The honourable member for Manchester relied on
him very much in bis anonymous character as the " The
Friend of India." But now he has appeared op3rly in
print, in the shape of a letter addressed to the honourable
member himself. The tree is to be judged by its fruits.
I will not weary you, but I have made a short extract
from this letter of Mr. Marshman's in which he tells you
in a most compendiousmanner what have been the changes,
" the fruits," in the internal government of India since
1833. He gives a summary somewhat to this effect :
" Small Crown Court established—municipal institutions
introduced—cognizance of all suits entrusted to native
judges—civilians instructed and examined in native lan-
guages—liberty of unlicensed print'ng establish-1." (An
ironical hear, hear, from Mr. Bright.) My honourable
friend cannot doubt that. The Friend of India is a proof
of unlicensed printing ; and I must say, from a pretty
good acquaintance with the Indian press, that it is
carried to as Meat an extent thorn as in any other
country. (Hear, hear.) Mr. Marshman goes on to say :
" Native languages restored in courts of justicc —Suttee
end infanticide suppressed—state lotteries forkidden—
slavery abo"shed—railroads begun— l.ectric telegraph
progress—uniform and cheap postage introduced." That is
Mr. Marshman's summary of his experience of the last 18
years of the government of Ind'a ; remember, we see now
trying the tree by its fruits. Then there is Mr. Ha"iday,
a most able witness, who approves of every one of the
changes effect A in the goverment of India, and whc3e
experience results from his having resided there for the last
20 or 30 years. With regard to the home Govesi.ment,
hesitates; he has not the same advantages for judging of that;
he hesitates, and it cannot be said his evidence goes fin slier.
(Hear, hear.) But again, to try the tree by its fruits. I
was associated with the Duke of Wellington in the gove—i-
ment of India in a moment of the greatest danger. We
have heard something of a question put elsewhere, as to
whether sons of horsedealers might not be sent out to
India. At the time I speak of the Queen's ermy hal met
with great disaster ; two armies had met with great ors-
aster; the one was commanded by Sir J. Pollock, the 11
other by General Nott. The disaster was retrieved by
them—by the son of a humble shopkeeper in the city of
London, end the son of a publican in the remote coiner of
South Wales. (Hear, hear.) These two generations sus-
tained the honour of British arms, and preserved from
destruction our great British empire. Try the tree by
its fruits, and say is this a system to be lightly set aside
—to be hastily rejected? It is a system with which
Sir R. Peel and the Duke of Wellington were they
alive now, would entreat you not hastily to tamper.
Ii nd not only is the military service worthy of our praise
--great as the achievements in war of the military have
been—yet more has been done by the civil service for
the promotion of the happiness of India. My right hon.
friend the member for Edinburgh has referred to a splendid
speech on India made by Lord Granville. I heard a speech
not inferior to that delivered by my right hon. friend him-
self not twenty years ago. I do not profess to quote his
exact words ; but, if I remember lightly the spnit of it,
he said—Under this system you have had men adminis-
toning the government of miY'ons of subjects; you have
had them leading victorious attacks ; you have ha I them
dictating terms of peace at the gates of conquered capitals;
you have had them administering the revenues of ir-ghty
pros ;nces ; have had them residing at the courts of tribu-
tary kings; and yet these men have returned to their na-
tive country with little more than a d-cent compete icy,
and sometimes in circumstances even of poverty. (Cheers.)
This was so—this still is so. Again, then, I say, tv the
system by its fruits ; prune it, trench about it if yen will,
but, I implore you, hesitate before you cut it down.
(Hear, hear.) I believe it to be good at heart— on the
whole, a good system of government. I do not say that
it is incapable of improvement. We have endeavoured to
improve it ; and in India itself I have shown you how
numerous have been the improvements. I will not now
enter into details, but I wish, before I sit down, to make
an observation on one remark of the honourable member
for the West Riding. He contrasts India with the co-
lonies. I ask whether any colony cep be produced in
which any improvements in the last eight an years have
taken place at all to be comprsed sth those in the inter-
nal government of India duisnif' the same period? As to
war, it has been my fortune to know intimately five gen-
tlemen who have gone out as governors-general to India.
My earliest, my most valued friend, Lord W. Bentinck,
expressed his intentions, and was enabled to carry them
out. I know Lord Auckland, Lord Ellenborough, Lord
Hardinge, and Lord Dalhousie. I know their intentions
were identically the same with those of Lord William
Bentinck. It was their firm determination to have
avoided war—to be petted& administrators, and to
spare the country the curse and the ev of need-
less war. I entirely agree with the testimony of
the right honourable gentleman the member for Thetford
Mr. Henries) on this point. I know it was the intention
of all these governors to have avoided war. I am confi-
dent it was not the home Government—neither the Queen's
ministers nor the Court of Directors—that urged upon these
governors in the slightest degree the policy of dissenting
from their peaceful intentions. It was not British policy,
it was Indian necessity that produced these wars. tHear.)
One and all were undertaken on the spot from a sense of
coming danger overriding the wishes of the men themselve ;
but in the discharge of an overwhelming public duty they
did not shrink from the responsibility of reversing their own
intentions, and by the necessities of the empire of being
driven to war. (Hear.) The hon. member for the West
• Riding talks of the declaration of Lord Dalhousie h
favour of annexation. It is owing to the very ciscum-
stances to which I before adverted, of duty and ne-
cessity, with an empire such as that which we pos-
sess in India, that notwithstanding all our self-deny-
ing ordinances here, notwithstanding the fixed inten
tion on the part of the governors-general themselves to
observe this policy—it is inherent in the nature of
an 'empire so large, with a frontier so exposed, and with
hostile states surrounding it on every side--it is inherent
in the difficulties of that government; with the strongest
desire to abolish war, with the strongest desire not need-
lessly to add to the extent of an emlsire so Unmanageably
large, that from time to time preconceived opinions should
change, and previous resolutions be reversed. The hon.
member was shocked at the annexation of Pegu ; but has
he not heard of annexations by other governments not ab-
solute or despotic ? I have heard of declarations of annex-
ation without bounds on the continent of North America,
and of a determination not to allow any independent neigh
hour to exist on that great and mighty continent. These
are the unavoidable necessities of empire. Wnat is true of
America is equally true of Asia, and there is great difficult
in declaring that you will not annex any additional coun-
try. My hon. friend thought the facts relating to the dis-
pute with Brsmah of no great importance; but he should re-
collect that the last insult was added to many former insults
and that i the eye of an Asiatic community tame submission
would have been fatal to that empire. (Hear.) But let
me ask if single government would be a check to these
wars The case put is, that the check on the East India
Company is inefficient. But suppose it were removed,
and a direct government established, there might be some-
what greater promptitude, but surely there could be no I

additional check as against war. But have we proposed no '
.check ? I contend that we have introduced a system
which will form a most admirable check. The annual
statement by a responsible Minister of the Crown of the
finances in India will give an opportunity to this house
of challenging every transaction with Indian interests
and Indian wars. (Hear, hear.) It is not my wish to
weary the house with details upon finance ; but again try
the merits of the system by its fruits. I will just glance
at the matter of finance. After the renewal of the
charter a large balance was appropriated in the extinc-
tion of the debt rightly appropriated, I think, but with
the consent of Parliament, for it was done in pursuance of
an Act of Parliament. In 1833 the debt of India was
38,000,000/. It is now 53,000,0001. The addition, there-
fore, on the face of the account has been 15,000,000/. But
in 1833 there was a balance in the E xchequer of 8,400,000/.
The balance at present in the Exchequer is 15,030,000/.
Deducting therefore that surplus of 6,600,000/. from the
15,000,0001. apparently of additional debt, there does only
stand an addition of 8,409,0001. of Indian debt after the
Affghan war, the Burmah war, the Punjab war, and
the war in Scmde—four wars most expensive and most im-
portant, and they have been conducted, one and all, to a
successful conclusion. But then the weight of the debt
must bear some relation to the income of the state on
-which it is charged. At the time of the passing of the
charter, in 1833, the debt, as I have said, was 38,0)0,000/.
The revenue at that time was 18,500,000/. In 1853 the
debt is 53,250,003/. But what is the revenue? Is it
18,000,000? On the contrary, the income—the territorial
income and revenue of the East India Company—is
29,000,000/. Therefore, if the debt has increased 40 per
cent., the revenue has increased 55 per cent, in the same
time. But it may be said this does anything bu;; prove
the improved condition of the people of India. That
would be true if you could show there had been
any increase of taxation during that period? But
is it so ? On the contrary, the tax on salt has been re-
duced 25 per cent., and the whole of the transit duty has
been abolished. So much with reference to the finances of
India. (Hoar, hear.) Something has been said about the
patronage of the directors. I have already told you how
that right has been exercised. The chairman of the com-
mittee will correct me if I am wrong, but I think I may
boldly state that, with every desire of procuring evidence
of malversation in the distribution of patronage, no such
proof has been produced. (Hear, hear.) On the other
hand, I may mention with the greatest praise men who
have not been followers of the aristocracy, but men who
have been brought from the middle class—
" Cwribus parviset paupere terra,
Missus in imperium magnum."
This has been the character, this is the character, of the
most distinguished servants of the East India Company,
such as Malcolm and Munroe. (Hear, hear.) I say, then,
that you may change your system—alter it if you please—
remove its imperfections if you can— but my firm and con-
fident belief is that greater and better men will not be sent
out to India under any other system than have been em-
ployed both in the civil and military service for the last
fifty years, and existing as it now exists. (Hear, hear.)
Now, with respect to the system of canvassing, I believe it
has not been conducive to the welfare of the country. And
why do I say so ? I believe some of the most distinguished
men have been excluded by not being willing to submit to
that canvass. One honourable member opposite was un-
willing to submit to that system. Mr. Willoughby, Mr.
Bird, and Mr. Robertson have also declared against it, and
upon the whole the weight of testimony is decidedly op-
posed to it. If there be anything unworthy in that can-
vass, it is connected with the promise of patronage as a
consideration for support. We strike at the very sys-
tem of undue canvass by our plan of open competi-
tion for the civil appointments, for the scientific ap-
pointments in the army, and for medical appoint-
ments. I think the diminished proportion of patronage,
with reference to the army, may safely be confided in
the manner proposed by this bill. The honourable
member for the West Riding says the plan is fatal to
the extended employment of the natives of India. On this
subject I may refer to the names of Elphinstone, Malcolm,
and Munroe. Lord W. Bentinck partook of the opinion,
when he went to India, that the natives were not suffi-
ciently trustworthy; but with the firmness and honesty
which so pecr'arly characterised him, he, on his own re-
sponsibility, gave effect to the means of farther employ-
ment. Did the East India Company interpose their autho-
rity, and reject that extension of employment to the na-
tives? Far from it. The hon. member for Hori ton (Sir
J. W. Hogg) the other night read to the house a dispatch
from the East India Company, in which they highly com-
mended the system which Lord W. Bentinck hadintro-
duced. I confidently believe that if it had been predicted
in 1833 to Elphinstone and Munroe and Malcolm that the
natives of India would be employed to the extent to which
they are now employed in 1853, the most sanguine hopes
would not have allowed them to believe that so great a
change could quietly have been effected in so short a time.
I will not weary the house by arguing in favour of the dis-
tinction between the covenanted and tricovenanted. set
I do not believe you can depart from that distinction in
the civil service and maintain it in the military service.
Finding it existing—finding it has been maintained up to
the present time—l hold that it wo-ald be the greatest in-
discretion, the most wanton incurring of needless danger,
to break down that line of demarcation. Ido not beilieve
you could open the covenanted sere ice in respect to civil
appointments and not greatly disturb it with reference to
military appointments. I will not push this topic farther,
but leave it to the sense and discretion of every one who
hears me to say whether his conscience does not tell him
that we ought to be careful on that subject. What more
has been done ? It has already been said, with respect to
general appointments, that 99 cases out of every 100 are ad-
judicated upon by native judges. In 1833 they were very
inadequately rewarded. The stipendiary magistrate at Cal-
cutta receives a salary of 1,50 Y. a year. The great body of
the judges, except of the lowest class, receive salaries vary-
ing from 1,5001. as a maximum to 360/. as a minimum ; and
very few of the natives receive salaries so high as 4001. I
am persuaded that there is a sincere desire on the pal ; of
the British Government and of the Governor-General to
introduce more and more into the service of the public,
as their fitness by education shall render the extension of
the principle safe, the natives of the country. (11.,r,
hear.) No apprehension of imaglualy danger should in-
duce me to act with injxe.fice to the people of that great
country, in withholding from them any share of power
Tor which LhoiT education fits them. But, on the other
hand, no fanciful notions of liberality, no schemes of
Government unsuited to that country, will, I hope, induce
the house to sanction any innovations of an untried and
dangerous character, however specious they may appear.
(Hear, hear.) I hope the house upon the whole wi!'. con-
sent to the second reading of this bill. There is, on the
part of the Government, every disposition to meet any
discussion in reference to its details in a spirit of the most
perfect candour. But I am satisfied that no more dan-
gerous course in the present critical circumstances could
be taken than to reject the measure, and that rejection
world be the effect of the adoption of the amendment of
noble lord. (Cheers.)
Sir H. MADDOCK said that the legislation now
intended would be imperfect and partial, and that the
bill did not legislate for India, nor provide for one-third of
the topics which ought to have been brought under the
consideration of Parliament. All that was now-left undone
would have to be done at the discretion of the President of
the Board of Control. He should have voted against in-
troducing any such measure this session, but as this bill
had been introduced, he thought, were it rejected, that a
prejudicial effect would be produced on the minds of the
people of India, and he should therefore vote for the second
reading, in the hope that various suggestions which he
made in the course of his speech would be duly considered
in committee.

Mr. J. PHILLIMORE charged Sir James Graham with
.having sought to lead away the house from the real ques-
tion, which was, the result of the administration of the
company. He went at much length into details to show
the debased and oppressed condition of the natives, and
urged that Mr. Macaulay ought to have risen and declared
that the company had falsified the promises which he had
made in their name years before. He urged that we should
repent before repentance was too late, and do the people
of India the tardy justice of giving them a responsible
government. Parliament was now on its trial, and would
be judged by posterity.
Mr. M. MILNES had come to the conclusion that no
case had been made out for changing the Government of
India. We ought to be very cautious, under the circum-
stances, of pronouncing censure on the efforts which able
and honest men had made for the administration of that
country, and he thought that nothing more remarkable
had occurred in regard to that administration than might
have been expected from the historical and political diffi-
culties of the case. He had one objection to the Govern-
ment bill, namely, the provision for open competition,
from which he did not believe that benefit would be de-
rived, but he should reserve this consideration for commit.
tee. The hon. member was frequently interrupted by calls
for division.

Mr. BRIGHT was not sure that, even if the bill were
less objectionable, it would not be advisable to delay it.
There could be no doubt that, a short time ago, the house,
the newspaper press, and, as ho believed, the Government,
were, in favour of postponing legislation—as was the
opirion of India. He did not like the bill better for having
no fixed period mentioned is it ; for, unstatesmanlike as it
was, it might have as long a run as the act which it was
to supplant. As regarded Lord Dalhousie's opinion, it was
probable that Sir J. Hogg, or some one else, had told that
nobleman what sort of a recommendation was desired.
Ho not believe any one, in or out of the house, was in
favour of the measrre. Of course, all who were connected
with the company wore for immediate legislation, for they
knew that, after two years' delay, public opinion would
make a renewal of their power impossible. Delay, he de-
clared, was wisdom. Remarking that previous speakers on
the Government side had not defended the bill, but had
thought that in vindicating the company's administration
of the past they had done enough in support of a measure
for the future, he entered into a prolonged argument to
show that the Indian Government had neither been correct
in the theory nor advantageous in practice. He dwelt on
the misery of the peasantry and the internal violence
which was permitted to take place, argued that our courts
produced the perjury imputed to the natives, characterised
the great trur ic road as a merely military and not a com-
mercial one, and showed how comparatively small was
the annual sum laid out in works, observing that the
town of Manchester alone had for years spent more in its
own improvements that had been spent in India by a go-
vernment drawing 29,00,0001. of taxes, and ruling more
than 100,000,000 of pecple. Ho had hored to hear from
Mr. Macaulay all that could be said for the bill, and be-
lieved he had not been dappointed ; and, referring to Mr.
Macaulay's description A the enormous and uncontrolled
powers of a collector, he urged that these afforded an argu-
ment why a government which appointed such men should
be theoretically correct He demanded why, if soldiers and
civil servants were ready to go out and label* in India for
years, energetic commercial men were not, and the fault,
he contended, must be caused by mal-administration.
After some strictures en the financial condition of India,
he proceeded to examiie the bill. Assailing the principle
on which the Indian alministration was founded, he urged
that the proprietors had no control over the directors, the
latter had none over the secret committee, and that again
had none over the Beard of Control, nor had the press
or Parliament any power over the Indian Government, and
no bill tending to antinue this mask and subterfuge
should receive anything but the condemnation he be-
stowed on the Government and on the present mea-
sure. The. Government had ceii;ainly done much to de-
grade the Court of Di•ectors by taking patronage from it,
and by showing an elusion that its constituency was unfit
to elect all its members, but no direct responsibility was
created as regarded a minister in that house, and the Pre-
sident of the Board of Control would shuffle away from
Indian questions as heretofore. He dwelt upon the popu-
larity which a government direct from the Crown would
enjoy in India. We were losing a great opportunity, and
he was unhappy that the bill had fallen into the hands of
a Minister unable to comprehend the 'importance of the
subjects By passing this bill we should ignore our own
constitution, and threw laud upon our representative in-
stitutions.

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