The Sun.
London, England, 1853-06-21 00:00:00

the public from a knowledge of their proceedings, great
responsibility would be laid on their shoulders which they
ought not to bear. It was not enough for them to
whisper, "We do not like the Affghan war or the
Scinde war;" but they ought to stand up in that
court and wash their hands of such things. But their
wish was that nobody should think that the Collet of
Directors and the Board of Control were not always in
harmony, or that there was ever any discord between
them; but it was of great importance that the public
mind should be disabused of the attempt to mystify these
proceedings. The law said that the Government of
India was vested in the East India Company, but
hardly was the ink dry which stated this, than it pro-
ceeded to create a power which debarred the company
from doing that which their judgment and conscience
dictated, but subjected them to the supervision and con-
trol of a Government board. It not only debarred them
from doing what was right and proper, but actually
compelled them to do that which, in their judgment
and conscience, they believed to be wrong, whenever
they received a mandate from the controlling power.
The system under which India was governed was a
miserable shadow and fiction, for, although the law
said the government of India was in the East India
Company, yet, whenever the President of the Board of
Control chose to exercise his power, he entirely annihi-
lated that of the Court of Directors, and became the
Government of India himself. Notwithstanding all the
facts that showed the Government of India to be really
in the Board of Control, yet they. had Sir James Hogg
boldly and broadly stating that, under the existing sys-
tem, the practical Government of India rested with the
Board of Directors. Well, with respect to the alter-
ations proposed, would they tend in any way to abate
the evils alleged ? What was the bulwark against the
overwhelming power of the Board of Control I It WAS
Miinfon_ibkpendent,,t •11,9fAlirentore.(eleeved.brear
ependent constituency. If the Minister of Indian
affairs had propounded a large and statesmanlike mea-
sure to remove the great and flagrant abuses of the pre-
sent system, he would have deserved the praise of the
country ; if he had proposed to lodge the Government
of India in a board elected by a constituency of the most
competent men, he would have taken a right direction ;
or if, maintaining the present system, he had proposed
to surround the Board of Control with a council to
check it in the exercise of its enormous power that
would have been an improvement ; but he did not
contemplate either of those things. He maintained
the Board of Control in the plenitude of its power,
while he set his foot upon the Board of Control. In
conclusion, while the present system was inconsistent
in principle, inconvenient in practice, and obstruc-
tive of measures beneficial to existing interests, still
he considered the remedy proposed was calculated exten-
sively to exaggerate those difficulties ; he hoped, there-
fore, the Court would adopt the resolution with which
he should conclude. The hon. proprietor then moved a
resolution to the effect—" That, having considered the
correspondence laid before the Court, and the principles
of the Government, the Court confining itself to the
question affecting the position of the Court of Directors
and confiding in the zeal and judgment of that body,
were of opinion that the present administration of
Indian affairs was essentially for the good of the govern-
ment of India, and that the proposed change in the con-
stitution of the Court of Directors was calculated to
impair the principal check which was now imposed upon
the Board of Control, and that the Court of Directors
be requested to submit these views to the Govern-
ment and to Parliament in such manner as they should
deem fit." _ _

Mr. H. MACKENZIE seconded the resolution, though
he considerably differed from many of the sentiments
expressed by the hon. proprietor who had proposed it.
He confessed, he considered that under the present sys-
tem great power was possessed by the Court of Direc-
tors. If, indeed, there were no power in public opinion,
then it might be said that the government of India was
in the hands of the Board of Control, because undoubt-
edly the act did enable that board, with very few excep-
tions, to annul what the Court of Directors proposed.
But the initiative rested with the Court of Directors.
He quite agreed that the Court of Directors had
maintained the position they ought to have done. It
was their dread of publicity And of collision that
prevented them. The Court of Directors would have
stood much higher in the public esteem if they had
laid before the public the whole conduct of the Indian
Government, and not have left any delinquency
or want of justice in India to be brotight before
Parliament by ill-informed men. He hoped it
was not too late for them to recover the ground which
they had lost. Bat he was decidedly of opinion that the
Government bill, instead of giving increased strength to
the court, was calculated to weaken it. In proportion
as the court was reduced in numbers, was it necessary
to strengthen the check on the Board of Control. The
object of such a body as the Court of Directors was to
present a bulwark to prevent popular attempts in England
from mischievously interfering with the government of
India. The court, as at present constituted, had
operated to strengthen the Minister against the influence
of party. The power of nominating six members on the
direction by the Crown would give a predominancy that
would often ignore the opinions of men of experience in
Indian affairs ; and he held it to be essential that the
court should, if possible, be enlarged and strengthened,
instead of being diminished and weakened. (Hear, hear.)
Sir J. Hoaa was greatly relieved to hear the lion.
gentleman (Mr. Sullivan) conclude with his resolution,
for his speech had been one sweeping denunciation of
the present system. He would not enter into details,
because he believed the object of the court was to uphold
the present system with as little modification as possible.
The right hon. baronet then went over the various topics
which constituted the subject of his late speech in the
debate of the House of Commons, contending that the
Court of Directors practically had in their hands the
government of India ; that whenever any conflict took
place between that court and the Board of Control, the
result was almost invariably the triumph of the opinions
of the Court of Directors and the submission of the
Board of Control. Allusion had been made to the revo-
cation of the appointment of Lord Heytesbury,—
Mr. SIILLIVAN.—Of Sir Charles Metcalfe.
Sir J. Hoao.—Sir Charles Metcalfe's appointment
was disapproved of, and Lord Heytesbury was ap-
pointed, and would have sailed, but for an accident to
the vessel, as Governor-General. The revocation of
that appointment had the appearance, and more than
the appearance, of having arisen from political feelings.
Lord Heytesbury was appointed by Sir Robert Peel's
Government. Lord Melbourne came into office ; the
appointment of Lord Heytesbury was revoked by Sir
John Hobhouse. Did the Court of Directors remain
silent and sluggish ? Were they fearful to remonstrate ?
No such thing. They remonstrated in strong language
against such an act of the Government. They pointed
' out the great danger of admitting political feelings to
interfere with the appointments to India. But their
remonstrances were in vain. (Hear, hear.) Yes, but
the question was brought before Parliament. He
moved for the production of papers relating to the recal
of Lord Heytesbury. The Government of the day was
strong and resisted the measure, and the house was told
that the recal did not arise from political feelings, but
from what he did not like to describe ; in short, it was—
" I don't like you, Dr. Fell,
" The reason why I cannot tell."

That was the reason assigned by the Minister of the
day for rescinding the appointment of Lord Heytes-
bury. A court of proprietors was then assembled,
and a motion for the production of the papers was
carried by a large majority. The papers were pro-
duced, and thus the court became instrumental in
laying them on the table of the House of Com-
mons and before the public. (Cheers.) He admitted
that it was perfectly true that the Executive of the com-
pany did not court collision. If it were any imputa-
tion to desire that the system established by law should
work well—that controversies and contests should be
avoided—the Court of Directors was ready to submit
to. that imputation. They denied that men who were
constantly displaying cantankerous feelings were ca-
pable of conducting business advantageously for the
public weal. (Hear, hear.) But he had departed from
the question before the court. What was the main
struggle of the day ? Let them not shut their eyes
upon that one main point. It was for them to say
" yea " or " nay " to it. The battle to be fought was,
whether India was to be transferred to the Minister of
the Crown, and be governed by the Ministers of this
country, or whether the instrumentality of the Court
of Directors of the East India Company was to be con•
tinned. Let them not waste arguments in discussing
other matters,—that was the main point. He believed
it would be for the public interest and tranquillity that
legislation should immediately take place ; and he next
believed that the great point for which they ought to
contend was what was technically called the " system
of double government," by the intervention of the East
India Company between the Crown and the Govern-
ment of India. That was the paramount principle, and
he hoped they would all take their stand upon it, and
from which they would not be compelled by any
power or force of public opinion to recede. After a
few observations upon the system of canvassing
for directorship, the hon. baronet concluded by
saying, it was of great importance that the resolution
should be placed in the hands of the Government by the
chairman before the second reading of the bill. It would
give strength, weight, and force to the remonstrances
which he heartily and sincerely hoped would be made on
that occasion. (Cheers.)
Mr. AYRTON rose to move, by way of amendment.
that the bill be referred to a committee to be appointed
by the Court of Directors out of the body of proprietors.
He had been in India, but was wholly unconnected with
the Government. It was (if the greatest importance that
the proprietors should understand their present position.
After April, 1854, they would have no moral right to
I interfere with the Government of India. He believed
the Prime Minister (Lord Aberdeen) had said that so
long as the stock of the proprietors remained unpaid,
there was an implied understanding that the proprietors
should intervene in the government of India. But that
observation was wholly unfounded. (The hon. proprie-
tor here quoted the words of the act in support of this
opinion.) He wished it not to be supposed that, in tak-
ing this course, he was hostile to the proprietary • ' but
he thought they ought to be warned that they had no
ml p o
ei
rpsei
st
ii
toine
hi nwraesgadter
ta tl
loy aciniyff
ecroemhtp,aac
and
(wi
ti thhe
rt h
fe C
ore throw n
eey
ought to adopt a different course. The hon. proprietor