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

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, JULY l, 1858.

tions,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 the, 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
ta
on and
n that,
Europe, certainly,
was
n o looking
very
this moment was less than two year's revenue of India,
formidablewhatweamwoerut
ena.ccuThstoemiend.
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 new territories,
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 26,000,000/. 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 27,000,0001 ; in 1851-52,
28,000,000/. ; and in 1852-53, 29,000,000/. In 1849-50 there
was a surplus of 354,000/. ; in 1850-51 a surplus of 415,0001.;
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, bear.) 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 unscrupul-
ness. 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 argaed 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-
tred 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 nob, 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 itwas 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

`OSo 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 opinion, but he had not exactly quoted that gentle-
was exceedingly bad and mischievous.
mi'aos .wzlrds, but had made him say that the double form
of governmOt,
What Mr. Han ay had said was :
~ I have a very high opinion of the mode in which the go-
vernment of India has heel; 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
good, why do you change anything?" He was not aware
that he said everything was good, or that he had not ad-
mitted that many things. had been ill done, arid many
others omitted to be done in India. Still, he had t bought
it right to defend the government of India from the indis-
criminate charges which had been made against it • and
~q asked, was it not wise to make use of the Court of Di-
h• -•-s, a body which did and must exist for the next 20
reek- '4 against whose administration, so far as tleey had
yedr4, an. -0 administration, no case of gross mismomage-
a share in th. -Toyed. Almost every witness who had
ment had been k -nmittee, whether connected with the
been before the co- not, had pointed out as the great
fault of the constitution...
Court of Directors or -
a long and tedious canvass .. ,
servants from coming forward - • . „.;
'f the Court, that the necessity of
l•ad deterred the best Indian
s candidates for a seat at
the direction. That was the evidb-ic-e.r't-tv-e-nrt:,h3fry.SSirhZ
herd, one of the ablest directors of tn. '-'`o
Lord Ellenborough, by Lord Hardinge, l:q .. Maddock, by Mr. Willoughby, bY my' Itelvill,
and w,7, by Mr. Bird, by Mr. Robertson, and by Mr. MIL,
....,,,
much authority upon such a question. That blot t. '
Coil-me_ I ekes, by
present b
one of whillomenhaadeavogrueractd etxoperii.eemnceed,y
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
.
• CrownP but this again was a question which ought to be