The Sun.
London, England, 1853-06-24 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, JUNE 24,

afford to postpone ; but all will allow that, at this parti-
cular period of the session, there is always a certain quan-
tity of business to be got through, which keeps us sitting
within these walls for some twelve hours a day during four
days in the week. Now I have looked through the parlia-
mentary annals for the last few years, and I have compared
the time during which Parliament and the Govemmnt
have been occupied in passing of great measures. I will
begin with the Reform Bill ; I go back to no more remote
period. I find that the Reform Bill for England alone was
introduced as early as the 12th of December, 1831—that it
was read a third time upon the 22d March, 1832, and that
it came down to us from the House of Lords in the month
of May, its consideration having occupied the time of Par-
liament altogether for six months before it was passed into
law. Of course it may be said that that was a measure of
no ordinary character; that it was one whichall but effected
a revolution in this country. But be that as it may, I
apprehend that no one will be disposed to deny that the
question which we are now discussing affects to a
far greater extent the interests, the well-being, and good
government of a far larger population. Well, again, to
take the instance of the act of the emancipation of the
negroes. I find that that measure was introduced into
this house early in May—that it remained in this house
1 above three months—and that it was not passed till the
end of the session. Again, thep.,,measure for the repeal of
the corn laws was introduced Me this house in 1846, the
statement of Sir R. Peel was made as early as the 27th of
January, the bill was read a third time on the 15th of
May, and on the 15th of June it was read in the House of
Lords—having exactly occupied five months in passing
into law. (Hear.) And to refer to a measure to which I
myself never attached as much importanailm others, I will
take the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, paiffed lin the year be-
fore last. That bill was introduced on the 7th of Feb.—it
remained before this house for the greater part of the ses-
sion, not to pass through the House of Lords until its very
close. Well, then, I will submit that there is no instance
within the memory of any living man of this house of a
measure of such magnitude and importance as that which
the right hon. gentleman has the charge of being intro-
duced at so late a season of the year, and of a similar
attempt to pass such a measure with such unexampled
haste. (Cheers.) And let it be remembered that every
one of the measures which I have cited as parallel cases
were measures upon which the public opinion of this coun-
try was more or less formed. That, however, is not the
case with the bill now before the house. If you look back
to our former legislation, even with reference to India,
you will find that a much longer period was allowed for
deliberation upon every- former occasion. In 1833, for
instance, when, if ever there was an occasion when
this house was overloaded with business, when if ever
there was a time when the Indian measure might have
been carried with rapidity, when the Government of
Lord Grey was occupied with a vast series of public
measures—in 1833, I say, when there was every excuse for
passing through this measure for the renewal of the char-
ter with more than ordinary rapidity, how was that ques-
tion dealt with ? A committee was moved for in February,
1831, just three years before the expiration of the charter.
The committee was again re-appointed in January, 1832,
and it closed its sittings, and reported to the house in
August, so that a full year was allowed for the considera-
tion of their report. The plan of the Government was
proposed to the Court of Directors in February, 1833, by
whom, after having been submitted to the Court of Pro-
prietors, it was accepted. And thus, so far as the measure
was concerned, it came perfectly unopposed before Parlia-
ment. It was brought before Parliament about the middle
of the session, it encountered no opposition, and it passed
the same year. And although the measure then introduced
admitted less extensive changes, I find that while it actually
occupied the attention of Parliament during the same
period as the bill now before us, I find that as far as the
committee was concerned, that one year more was taken to-
deliberate on the question than had been allowed on the
present occasion. In 1833, then, when the changes intro-
duced were much less extensive than those which the right
hon. gentleman proposes, I find that the ministerial state-
ment was made in the month of March, evidence having
been taken, not as now, before a select committee, but
before a committee of the whole house, a mode of procedure
which, if it was more inconvenient than that at present in
practice, had undoubtedly this advantage, that it led the
members of the house to obtain correct views as to the
bearing of the evidence, as well as more generally in-
formed the public on the points on which a decision was
desirable. (Hear, hear.) Well, after all that evidence
had been taken, and after the ministerial statement had
been made, I nevertheless find that the measure
did not pass until the very close of the session.
(Hear, hear.) And looking back so far as the year 1783,
when the great organic change was made, and which con-
stituted the Court of Directors—looking back to that year
I find that the Government introduced the first of two
bills on the 18th of November, and the second was pro-
posed on the 12th of January. These two measures were
finally passed in an autumn sitting, after having been eight
months before the Legislature. Now, having stated this
much, I believe, sir, I am entitled to say that on a refer-
ence to precedents the right hon. gentleman opposite is not
justified in calling upon Parliament to pass this bill during
the course of the present year. And I have said also that
it is not desirable that .a bill of this nature should pass
without the people of India themselves having had some
opportunity to consult of its provisions. Now, here I
admit at once that when I speak of public opinion I am
not speaking of native opinion. True, I greatly value the
opinion of the natives of India—(loud cries of Hear,
hear)—upon every question of local grievance, and upon
questions of purely local interest. But when you come
to deal with a great constitutional change in that country
—when you are dealing with a great work which will
affect the whole administration of India, I would not
be inclined to attach any very great importance to the
views of the natives who might choose to give their
opinions. (Cries of Hear, hear.) But I do say, that
when a measure of this kind is put forward, which touches,
as it does, not only the interest of all the Europeans resi-
dent in India, but likewise those of all the civil and mili-
tary officers employed in that country—all of those men
who have • passed many years in India—most of those
men whose attention has been naturally and neces-
sarily directed to this subject—l must say that the
fact of the opinion of all those upon the measure of the
Government not being yet known furnishes the very
strongest reasons against it. (Hear, hear.) And I will
state further, that it appears to me you are throwing away
a great advantage indeed if yostunbstain from consulting
the opinions of a class whose evidence would be of the most
incalculable value. (Hear, hear.) For, be it remembered,
the number of those who have come over to this country is
very small. Almost every witness examined had been in
the military or civil service of the company, some of them,
however, though certainly not the whole of them, having
since retired from the service. Now if this were a bill
relating to some subject connected with the adminis-
trtion of the poor law in this country—to the county
votes, our object would be to circulate the bill as widely as
possible, in order that its plpvisions might be made known
to those who would be affected by it, before it finally
received the sanction of Parliament. But, again, I will
say that, even in England itself, public opinion is not as
yet matured upon the subject though that, perhaps, is not
a matter susceptible of direct proof, but is rather a matter
for demonstration. Still, if I am to describe what is the
actual state of opinion in England, I should say there is a
very general feehng of dissatisfaction as respects the mode
in which the affairs of India have been managed, and that
some great change is necessary, if not desirable quite as
general, I should say, as the state of ignorance as to what
that exact change should be. That is the state of public
opinion which I believe to exist in this country, and that
is what I mean by saying that the state of public opinion
is as yet hardly matured. But I have heard it argued in this
house that although the committee up stairs have not
closed their sittings or concluded their labours, still they
had before them the evidence necessary to guide the house
as to the formation of the constitution of the home Govern-
ment, although they may not have sought for information
with regard to the probable working of that constitution
amongst the people of India themselves. That, however,
I submit, sir, to be a most erroneous course to follow, and
one which I conceive to be wholly at variance with a due
regard for those principles of good government, by which
the administration of the affairs of our Indian empire
should hereafter be distinguished—(hear, hear)—for if you
want to know whether it is necessary to make a change—
and if a change, what change—it is best to ascertain iu the
first place what has been the working of our government
already. (Hear, hear, hear.) I certainly cannot conceive
how you are to judge of a government otherwise than by
your experience of it. You judge of a tree by its fruit.
You judge of an administration by its effects on the popu-
lation over whom it has been placed. (Renewed cries of
hear, hear.) Sir, I have heard it said by the noble lord
opposite, the member for the City of London, though not
in this house, yet I have heard him say on a great public
occasion, that the East India Company were now placed
upon) their: trial. Well, I admit that fact—no other
issue is before us. But what does the right hon. gentle-
man opposite popose to us to do? Why, by the very nature
of his proceedings he calls upon us now—without further
investigation, all on a sudden, uninformed, anti undeter-
mined—to return our verdict. (Cheers.) Well, I am
inclined to believe that I have thus made out a pia
facie case against any immediate legislature. (Hear,
hear, hear.) But when we use an argument of this
nature, we are very often met by gentlemen of high
authority and repute—though, perhaps, they have not,
after all, so lima. evidence to support their' views—
but still we are bet by the assertion that any delay
in giving a permanent form of government to India
would be productive of the utmost mischief. And indeed
the right hon. gentleman opposite, in confirmation of that
opinion, cited the high authority of the present Governor-
General of India. I, sir, own I should be the last person
to question or detract from the high authority of the Mar-
quis of Dalhousie, for I believe that India was never ruled
by a more indefatigable or a more able minister. And to
any opinion of his, deliberately formed and clearly. ex-
pressed upon a subject on which he is so well acquainted
as India, I am inclined to pay all possible deference.
(Hear, hear.) But, though I do not mean to argue that
the right hon. gentleman opposite (Sir C. Wood), in giving
Lord Dalhousie's opinion without communicating to us at
the same time the whole contents of the letter in which
that opinion was given, although I do not for a moment
mean to affirm that he has not fairly represented that
opinion, still I do think that it is quite possible, with all
respect to the right hon. gentleman, and the Governor-
General, that he may have sent a leading question to
India, and received in return the answer which he anxiously
wished for. (Loud cries of hear, hear.)
Sir C. WOOD—No, no.
Lord STANLEY—WeII, the right hon. gentleman says
" No," and of course his denial will be accepted by all who
have heard him. But, nevertheless, I may suggest that,
after all, Lord Dalhousie's opinion amounted to this, per-
haps. He said—"lf you have a measure ready, the sooner
you legislate the better, and the sooner you settle the
question so much the more advisable." (Hear, hear.)
Undoubtedly that was so. It is a point on which I must
entirely concur with his lordship, and one on which, I
imagine, no difference of opinion prevails, either in or out
of this house. (Loud cries of hear, hear.) That, how-
ever, was not the real question the question to be
determined is whether, under all the circumstances I have
mentioned, and towards the close of a session, the post-
ponement of the work of legislation for one or two years
was not the course far more to be preferred, to legislating
in haste, and on imperfect information? (Hear.) And
again, I own that I am not without sympathy with those
right hon. gentlemen who lay such stress upon the opinion
of a noble lord, delivered in another place. I certainly at-
tach the greatest weight to the authority of Lord Ellen-
borough, and I am willing to admit that he has painted in
the very strongest colours the danger of postponing legis-
lation. But, while I admit the great authority of the
Roble lord, his experience, and his unwearied assiduity, I
am not quite so sure that Lord Ellenborough can be quoted
so safely in favour of immediate legislation. Although the
noble earl announced in his place that he was desirous of
immediate legislation—which is quite a natural conclusion
for the noble earl to come, considering the position which
he had occupied in respect to India—nevertheless, Lord
Ellenborough expressly declared at the same time, that the
measure proposed by the right hon. gentleman opposite
was one which, in his opinion, was more calculated to
produce agitation than to allay it. I have heard a some-
what singular argument employed by a distinguished mem-

ber of the Government in another place. I heard it said,
as to waiting until we have full information on the sub-
ject, that even to a master any one head of Indian inquiry,
it would take a period, not of months, but probably of
years. Now, I think that an argument founded upon
such a statement is ridiculous. It is said that, because
you cannot obtain complete and accurate information on
the whole question, that therefore we shall dispense
with information upon any one point—that, in fact, by
not making ourselves masters of all the details it is not
worth our while to attempt mastering any of them at
all, and therefore that it is better to let them alone.
(Hear, hear.) Now this is a kind of argument in which I
cannot concur. But passing from this question, what are
the arguments that have been alleged against suspending
legislation for another year? We are told that we are
likely to have a serious agitation in India. But what is
meant by this apprehended agitation ; Does it mean a
disturbance ? Does it mean an insurrection ? Does it mean
an agitation backed up by physical force ? Well, then, if
that is really the meaning implied by this word "agita-
tion," I must say I believe that a more frivolous or absurd
apprehension has never disturbed the mind of men. (Hear,
hear.) Let us look back to all our former history con-
nected with legislation in India. Why, I believe that
there is not a single instance on record of anything more
than a comparative trifling disturbance having taken place
in consequence of a delay in our legislation for India,
excepting the one case which occurred in Madras at
the beginning of the present century. I do not be-
lieve that, with the exception to which I have referred,
you can point out a single instance in which any-
thing like a serious disturbance took place in India
under such circumstances. If we look back to the years
1783, 1813, or 1833, when the charters were to be re-
newed, we find nothing whatever had occurred in India
to warrant such an apprehension. We have frequently be-
fore plied the Government of India upon their trial. We
have fiiiquently before tested their patience in respect to
our legislation. And at those periods to which I have
referred, our movements were as well known to the natives
of India as they are now, when we ask you to assent to a
little further temporary suspension, before you enact a
measure which, under the circumstances, must be ad-
mitted to be one of an imperfect character. I need not go
back to those periods to which I have referred for the pur-
pose of showing you the absurdity of your apprehensions in
respect to delaying legislation. I need only remind you
that during the last two years it was well known in India
that it would be in the power of Parliament for a limited
period to renew or to change the existing form of govern-
ment for India. Well, then, I ask you, have any distur-
bances arisen in India in consequence? (Hear.) If no dis-
turbances have taken place between the years 1850 and
1853, although it was well known that during that period
the fate of the Government hung upon the decision of Par-
liament, I do not see any ground for apprehension now,
merely because you require a little longer time, in order to
enable you to introduce a complete and efficient measure
for the future government of India. (Hear.) But, in
point of fact, I do not believe that there is any one who is
acquainted with India who can entertain any apprehen-
sion of insurrection or disturbance by reason of this delay.
There are, on the contrary, many reasons for supposing
that no disturbances nor insurrections will take place. In
the first place, let us consider the immense military force
we have in the country, and that the natives of India are
an unwarlike people. Let us recollect that there is
no unity of action amongst them' and that the result
of the whole policy pursued by tie East India Com-
pany has been to diminish as far as possible the num-
ber of wealty and influential men amongst the natives.
(Cries of Hear.) At this moment, if there was any in-
clination to disturbance in India, there is not to be found
in any part of the country a loader that could reckon on a
large proportion of followers. Why, there is at present a
total absence of men who would be qualified or desirous of
leading such a movement : and the experience of the best-
informed persons on the subject is that su.ih a movement
could not really occur. Though many independent states
had been subject to revolution within a short period, they
have never risen against the supreme power or have never
attempted to break the link that bound them to this
country. Well, then, it does not appear to me reasonable
to suppose that the same people and the same races who
had seen their native rulers destroyed and' their native
Governments destroyed without a murmur—that, because
we deem it necessary to pause for a little longer before we
enact a measure for the Government of India they would
exhibit their impatience in the way of disturbance or in-
surrection. (Hear.) Moreover, it is highly probable that
the great mass of the people of India will know nothing
whatever of the merits of the bill, even when it is passed
into a law. But perhaps it is supposed by those who ad-
vocate immediate legislation that delay would occasion
something like that sort of agitation which we have in
England. Now, in the first place I believe that anything
like an agitation such as we have in England is totally
alien to and repugnant to the habits of the natives of
India. But even if a large number of petitions were to be
poured into this house, and even if there was a greater de-
gree of attention paid by the natives to their local griev-
ances—even if they did find out that they wanted several
public works deemed necessary for the improvement of the
country, together with a mitigation of taxation, I don't
think that any agitation of such a kind would prove a
great injury to us. On the contrary, I believe that if you
could get the people of India to take a little more interest
in their own public affairs, you would not be injuring the
mindo
stability tfylonfdtia hewEonuiglidsmh
ateiaGovernment,orrllyassistyou
creating any degree
of disturbance that could give us the slightest cause for
uneasiness. I believe that such a publicmovemenitninnatrrheyngon
the administration of Indian affairs. I certainly do not
understand what is meant by saying that there is a danger
of creating agitation in India, because it is known that
the Legislature of this country is ready to provide remedies
for their grievances. I can understand that when men
know that the doors of Parliament are closed against their
complaints, that, in such a case, there would be something
to gain by violent means, inasmuch as there was no hope
of succeeding otherwise; but I cannot imagine anything
to provoke an agitation by physical force when the people
themselves are fully conscious that, whatever those griev-
ances may be, they have a constitutional, a peaceable, and
an accessible remedy in this house, which was ready to
take their grievances into consideration. (Hear, hear.)
Well, but after all, I do not understand upon what ground
those who support the measure of the Government are
justified in speaking of the danger of agitation arising from
delay. We are told that if you do not legislate immedi-
ately, there will be a serious agitation in India. Well,
but the bill of the right hon. gentleman himself a provi-
sional measure. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman
introduces a measure which he says is, at all events, an
experiment, and that if it is found not to work, it will
be in the power of Parliament either to revoke or alter
the bill. Why, what is that but suspending legisla-
tion ? It is introducing a provisional state of things for
a limited and indefinite period. I can understand how
those who aro satisfied with the present state of things
can argue against the danger of a provisional state of things
and introducing such a measure as that proposed by the
right hon. gentleman ; but I confess that I do not under-
stand how that argument can be used by those who sup-
port the present bill, and far less by those who have intro-
duced the measure. (Hear, hear.) Well, as regards the
actual administration of affairs in India, what, I ask, will
be the result of putting the government on its trial for
some time longer? Sir, I believe that the result will be
this—that all persons who are employed under the Govern-
ment will work under an increased sense of responsibility,
and with more activity, in trying to set their houses in
order before the arrival of the next session. (Hear, hear.)
Certainly it is very often said—and I believe with truth—
that there is more local reform and improvement effected
in the two or three years before the expiration of the char-
ter than in the ten years preceding. That I believe to be
literally the case, and I think there will be a still stronger
inducement to those employed in the Government of India
to exert themselves in effecting those improvements that
are desirable when they know that they will have the
short interval for proving themselves worthy of their posi-
tion between the present period and the next session of
Parliament, for I think that the result of suspending legis-
lation for another year will be good. I know not whether
it is worth my while to refer to certain objections and
taunts which I have heard made in other places against this
proposition on our part for delay. I have heard it said that
although we are now proposing to suspend legislation, yet
that it was the intention of the late Government to have
legislated immediately upon the subject. Now I beg to
say most distinctly, that that allegation is utterly un-
founded. I have looked back to see what had been the
language held by the leader of the late Government at
the time when this question was brought before Par-
liament. I find that the noble earl had used the follow-
ing words on the 2nd April last year :—" By the report
of the committee of this and the other House of Parliament,
her Majesty's Government are ready to be guided in the
course which they ought to take in reference to India ; and
to these committees must be deputed the important task
of considering how the affairs of India hereafter shall
best be conducted." Why, the meaning of those words is
clearly against immediate legislation. And the right hon.
gentleman who then held the office which was represented
by the right hon. gentleman opposite (Sir C. Wood), in
moving for a committee of this house, used similar lan-
guage. Well, I have referred to those observations for
the purpose of showing what the intentions of the late
Government were in respect to this subject. I certainly am
not aware that it was ever theintention of thelate Govern-
ment to have legislated for India previous to the presenta-
tion of the reports of the committees that had been ap-
pointed by both houses of Parliament to inquire into the
subject. I wish now to make an observation in reference
to the form of the amendment which I have submitted to
the house. In the words.of my amendment Ihave merely
stated that further information is necessary to enable Par-
liament to legislate for the future government of India,
and that, therefore, it is inexpedient to proceed with
the present bill. Of course that amendment is open
to objection if I intend to convey by it an opinion that
we ought not to legislate in some form in order to meet
the difficulty that arises by the expiration of the charter.
Now I wish to state distinctly that in the amendment
which I have proposed, although my meaning may not be
very clearly expressed, that the intention of it is that we
shall continue the act for a limited period of time. I now
wish to make a few remarks upon the measure of the right
hon. baronet (Sir C. Wood.) That measure consists of a
variety of details and of many provisions. As to many of
those provisions we are agreed, and I have no desire to in-
terposeonoor
twoanyof those unnecessary
provisionsobjections.
which
Therethink
exceedingly
objectionable. The three main provisions of the right hon.
gentleman's bill are these—first, the non-renewal of the
charter ; secondly, the plan by which the patronage is to
be disposed of ; and, lastly, the constitution of the Court
of Directors. I do not deny that all legislation at all times
and in all countries must, to a certain extent, be experi-
mental. But, I confess, that instead of proposing a mea-
sure so confessedly experimental as the present is—a mea-
sure which is framed in such a way as to leave it open to
Parliament at any period to alter or revoke—l think it
would be much better if the right hon. gentleman had
taken a fixed term of years, and had said that this India
Bill, whether it be good or bad, shall have a fair trial.
Now that, in my opinion, would be a better and a wiser
course for the right bon. gentleman to have taken than the
one he has adopted. I think that when the right hon. gen-
tleman leaves his measure open, to be altered at any time
that Parliament shall think proper, he utterly destroys
his own argument used against any amendment, that
there will be an agitation in India if we refused to legi-
slate until next session. (Hear, hear.) The right hon.
patronage. The East India Company has been exposed
gentleman dwelt at some length upon the question of
to some reflections as to the manner in which they
have disposed of their patronage. In that censure I do.
not concur. I think that the patronage by the East,
India Company was better disposed of under all the circum-
stances of their position than some persons are disposed to
admit. But I say at the same time, that the system of
placing so large an amount of patronage in their hands in
one which I think is not calculated to promote the interests
of the public service. You give to the directors of the Com-
pany an allowance which is perfectly inadequate for the
services they have to discharge. These services are per-
formed in private, and are not brought forward under the
public eye. A director is not paid for his services in pecu-
niary emoluments—it is said that he is paid in patronage.
But when you say that, you employ a phrase that carries

with it an idea that patronage is not distributed for the
good of the public service. If ho is merely to act between
conflicting claims for admission to employment, that privi-
lege which is conferred on him is of a very invidious cha-
racter. Under the old system his salary was not one-third,
and under the new system scarcely one-half, of that which
was paid to the head clerk of a public office. The patron-
age that is given to him under such circumstances necessa-
rily implies that he is allowed a large discretion in the dis-
tribution of the patronage for private purposes. I appre-
hend that so long as, under these circumstances, anything
like this system is maintained, you will find that the patron-
age will be employed in the way I have just mentioned, and
you will not Ind that such employment of it will ever be
sanctioned by public opinion. The right hon. gentleman
opposite condemns this system of leaving so much patron-
age in private hands. From that condemnation of it, it was
not I think unnatural for us to suppose that he would do
otherwise than abolish the system, or at all evbnts gradu-
ally to diminish it. I confess that I myself was under that
impression up to the moment that the right hon. gentleman
had made his proposition. But when I came to look at the
effect of his proposed measure, and when I compare it with
the system at present iu operation, it appears to me that
the amount of reform which he proposes is absolutely dis-
proportioned to the language with which he introduced
that part of his scheme to the house. I find that upon an
average of 18 years past, the directors have had annually
in their gift 286 military, and 35 civil appointments. The
patronage under the existing system was therefore divided
into 24 parts. Let us remember that one civil appointment
in pecuniary value is worth as much as three military ap-
pointments. For convenience, then, of calculation, let us
turn into value of military appointments what every three
tor has at present at his disposal. We shall find, then.
that there are 10 and a fraction of military, and one civil
appointment, annually in the hands of each director. In-
stead of having 24 directors in office, it is now proposed
to have only 18. The patronage, therefore, will be divided
into 18 instead of 24 parts. The civil appointments are
to be taken away altogether. Under the new system,
therefore, there will be 13 cadetships to each of the direc-
tors, while under the old system the number was 14.
Now, I do not consider that this is a great reform in
the system of patronage. (Cries of "Hear, hear.") With
regard to the plan with which he proposes to deal with the
civil patronage—the right hon. gentleman has introduced
a principle in respect to civil patronage which I believe to
be unknown in this country—l suppose I may call it a
Chinese principle—this is a principle of unlimited intellec-
tual competition for admission to office. I do not for a
moment mean to deny but that the introduction of such a
system is an improvement upon the present one. I believe
that it is infinitely better that these appointments should
be reserved for persons who, by their intellectual merits.
are more capable of filling them. I approve of that prin-
ciple. But, though I am far from condemning the experi-
ment the right hon. gentleman proposes to make, still I
cannot help thinking that he will find some practical diffi-
culties in carrying out the details of his plan. In the first
place, the competition will be open to all England. I do
not know the number of applications there have generally
been for civil appointments ; but, if it were anything like
the number of applications which all persons receive for
situations of infinitely less importance, I apprehend that
the number will be considerably greater than he appears
to calculate upon. (Hear, hear.) I think, therefore,
that the right honourable gentleman will find a practical
difficulty in submitting to an examination this enormous
and unwieldy number. There may, no doubt, be some-
thing in the principle of making a man's fortune in life
depend upon his proficiency at an early age ; but I think
that the system the right hon. gentleman proposes in re-
spect to those examinations is rather exclusive, in refusing
admission to civil offices to all those who have not distin-
guished themselves at an early period of life. Upon the
whole, the general principle of intellectual competition I
think is so infinitely better than the present system, that I
am unwilling to find a fault with the details of that part of
the measure. I think, however, that you are running
some risk of flooding India with over-educated mediocrity.
If the principle of competition is adhered to, I would sug-
gest that it would be advisable to distribute some part of
that patronage amongst the principal educational establish-
ments of the country, instead of leaving it dependent upon
any peculiar form of education the nature of which we do
not know. (Hear.) I think that by doing so you would
have an opportunity of getting as large a number and as
equal a chance of distinguished and efficient men. It is a
question whether some part of the patronage might not be
kept advantageously for distribution by Government—net
certainly for purposes of political influence, but for distri-
bution amongst the sons of those who had distinguished
themselves in the civil and military services of the country.
(Hear, hear.) This would be a cheap mode of rewarding
such persons, and it would be extremely valuable to a class
of men, many of whom at present live in England and are
by no means in wealthy circumstances—a class of men
than whom, I think, there are none more laborious or in-
defatigable. Well, I come now to the question as to the
manner in which the right hon. gentleman proposes to deal
with the home government. I do not think it necessary
to dwell on that curious and rather complicated machinery
by which he proposes to carry out his plan ; I take that
plan as it will be permanently established and in full
operation. Now, this question necessarily leads us to the
consideration of the general question of a double or single
government. Whatever is said against a double govern
ment as at present existing I must say that I never heard
any scheme proposed for the government of India which
did not, to a certain extent, contain the principle of a
double government. But if the legislative council which
the right hon. gentleman proposes is to be anything cor-
responding to the council in• India, which I believe is the
plan laid down by the right hon. gentleman, you must
give to the members of that council the power of recording
their opinions. You must, I think, also give them, to a
certain extent, a control over the minister ; and in the
lame proportion as you permit them to control the minister
you will be introducing the principle of a double govern-
ment. (Hear.) I take the real question with regard to the
government of India to be, not whether there should be a
double or a single government, but what the double govern-
ment is to be, and in what manner it is proposed to give
efficacy to it. And looking at the plan of the right hon.
gentleman, I confess it does not seem to be one that is well
calculated to give efficacy to this double government. If
there is one thing you require more than another in that
council, or body, or whatever you choose to call it ; if
there is one thing more than another which is absolutely
indispensable to the due performance of their duties, it is
that they should be independent of the Government.
What is the plan, then, of the right honourable gentle-
man ? Why, he takes the members of the existing
board, makes one-third of them nominees of the Crown,
and allows thorn at the same time to have a seat in this
house ; therefore, it is absolutely impossible that they
should not to a great extent be under the influence of
the minister of the day. (Hoar, hear.) Now I do not ask
the house to pledge itself to any opinion upon the nature
of the government which is henceforward to be adopted in
India ; but this I have no hesitation in saying, that if you
are not merely to keep up a continued agitation upon the
subject, but if you propose to introduce any change or
reform whatever, no reform can be complete or serve the
people of India which leaves untouched the Court of
Proprietors. (Hear, hear.) A great deal is to be said
for a double government, and a great deal is to be said
for the maintenance of the Board of Directors and
the Board of Control in the performance of their
present duties, but I have never yet heard any single
argument adduced by any one in defence of the main-
tenance or the existing Court of Proprietors. They share
in no responsibility, they have no Indian experience.
they take no particular interest in Indian affairs, they exer-
cise no control over the directors who are elected by them,
and they are themselves in a position of absolute irresponsi-
bility to the public. Various schemes have been suggested
for making the court of proprietors a really effective and
useful body, but any measure which continues that court on
its present footing is a measure which I, for one, shall not ac-
cept as an efficient measure of reform. The right hon. gen-
tleman proposes a bye-law for the purpose of doing away
with canvassing; and I have'no doubtlthat the canvass for
the directorship, as it is now carried on, is a very great and
serious evil, and that it operates more than any other cause
in keeping good men out of the direction. The bye-law the
right hon. gentleman proposes is this. It prohibits any
canvassing or solicitation for votes by any proprietor on
behalf of himself or of any other proprietor. But the sole
result that I can see of that plan is that the candidate will
not be allowed to employ as his canvassing agent any pro-
prietor of the court. And I believe, if you retain the
court of proprietors on the present footing, absolutely irre-
sponsible, and having no peculiar interest in Indian affairs
and as long as you leave a large amount of patronage in the
hands of the directors, that any act passed for the prohibi-
tion of canvassing will be a nugatory act, and you might as
well pass a law that no one shall apply to the goverment
here for an appointment. (Hear, hear.) What I wish to
point out to the attention of the house before I take leave
of this part of the subject is, that the bill of the right hon.
gentleman, as I understand it, is not a measure of reform
doing away with , the abuses which have been com-
plained of, neither is it a simple measure of con-
tinuance, retaining the existing system on its present
footing. The proposition of the right hon. gentleman,
so far from removing, tends in my opinion to aggra-
vate those abuses, because the power is now wholly vested in
the Board of Control, and the directors have not in reality
that independence which they profess to have, and the effect
of the measure of the right hon. gentleman is to make the
Court of Directors still more than ever dependent
on the Board of Control. It is not for me, at this stage
of the measure, to dwell upon that vast series of subjects
which occupied about three-fifths of the speech of the
right hon. gentleman. The right hon. gentleman entered
into a review of the whole system of the company's admi-
nistration in India ; and he complimented them upon that
administration in a highly flattering manner. Now I do
not complain that the right hon. gentleman should have
felt a desire to justify, as far as he was able the conduct of
the directors, and to place their administration in the most
favourable light possible. But this I must say, with re-
ference to what the right hon. gentleman stated as to the
foreign policy of the Indian Government, that there is
not a territory in the whole world which is so ab-
solutely safe from all danger of invasion from without
as the British posessions in India, There you have a
frontier of about 2,000 miles ; and along its whole ex-
tent there are only two points, which together do not
exceed 100 miles, by which it is possible for a foreign army
to penetrate into India. Therefore, as regards foreign in-
vasion, we have no reason to apprehend any danger what-
ever. But whilst we have a sufficient guarantee for the
safety of our empire, at the same time there are some cir-
cumstances connected with Indian administration which it
is most necessary to notice in this house, because they
appear to indicate that the state of that country, safe as it
may be from external aggression, is nevertheless critical,
and requires mature and careful consideration. If I look
back over the years which have elapsed since last the
charter was renewed, I find that fifteen years of that period
have been years of war; that, whereas in other countries
the normal state is one of peace, in India, whatever be the
cause, it is one of war ; and when I hear it asserted that
our policy in India has at all times been a defensive and
not an aggressive policy, I must say that those who take
that view read history in a very different manner from
that which I do. I am not going into a history of the
recent wars in which we have been engaged. I am per-
fectly ready, for the sake of argument, to acquit the Go-
vernment of India of having unnecessarily forced on these
wars ; but I apprehend that every one of these wars may
be, indirectly, if not directly, charged on the foreign policy
of the Indian Government. (Hear.) If you choose to in-
terfere in the internal policy of states with which you have
infinitely less to do than you have with the disturbances
now taking place in China —if you so interfere, in defiance
of every rule of justice and morality—then your policy
must be essentially agressive ; and I venture to say, upon
the authority of those who had thebest opportunities of
judging, that there is scarcely a native prince or an intel-
ligent native of India, who has reflected on your public
policy, who does not believe that the object of your ambi-
tion is territorial aggrandisement in India. (Hear.) With-
out entering upon the history of these wars, I say that it
is impossible not to perceive that the recent wars which
led not only to an increase of territory, but to an increase of
debt, have been, directly or indirectly, the result of that
great blunder and great crime, the invasion of Affghanis-
tan. (Hear, hear.) Ono most important element in
Indian affairs which I think the right hon. gentleman

passed over rather lig Lt. y_ n the fr.ria f: :ri
question. Anything more unsatisfactory in h.s statements
with regard to Indian finance, since the renewal of the
last charter it has never been my lot to see placed before
the English public. (Hear, hear.) Why, out of the 14
years which have elapsed between 1838 and 1850, both in-
clusive, it appears that every single year, with the exception
of 1849 and 1850, shows a deficit. The total amount of de-
ficit on these years is 15,500,030/. sterling, and the actual
result is, that, since the renewal of the charter in 1834,
20,000,0001. has been added to the debt. Of course it will
be said that, after all, it is a most insignificant sum when
compared with the debt of the United Kingdom; but then.
there is a great difference in the position of the two coun-
tries. In England you might double your revenue in any
one year of emergency without difficulty ' • but I am per-
fectly certain that if you were to attempt to raise in India
the public tax 20 per cent., the attempt would utterly fail.
True, the area of taxation in India has of late years greatly
increased. No one doubts that from India, with the addi-
tion of Scinde, the Punjaub, and other smaller states, you
draw a much larger revenue now than you did before these
accessions of territory, but I think it is very doubtful whe-
ther that increase of revenue has been proportionate to the
extent of territory you have added to your empire there.
It has often been stated that Scinde does not pay its ex-
penses, but then you are always referred to the case of the
Punjaub, and told that, whatever your other annexed ter-
ritories may have done, the Punjaub has always been pro-
fitable. Now, from some cause or other, the territory of
the Punjaub may be profitable. But I find the financial
expenditure and revenue of the Punjaub, within the last,
two years, contrasted in this manner. At the beginning I
think of ast year the total revenue of the Punjaub was
2,000,0001., 1,600,0001., of which was derived from the
laud. The total civil expenditure, including also the mili-

tary expenditure for certain irregular local troops, was
1,300,0001.;_ leaving a surplus of 700,0001. to defray the

expenses of the general Government of the Punjaub.
Now, taking the average of the military expenditure
of India, the cost of that part of the army which is
maintained in the Punjaub ought to be about
2,000,0001. That, added to the expense of the civil
Government of the Punjaub, would make a total ex-
penditure for the civil and military services altogether of
about 3,300,0001.; and seeing that in the year to which I
refer you only drew a revenue of 2,000,000/.ffrom the Pun-
jaub, a deficit remains of 1,300,000/. (Hear, hear.) I now
come to the subject of public works ; and I do not deny that
something has been done, especially in the last few years,
in regard to public works in India. (Hear, hear.) I am very
far from denying that, in this respect, some improvements
have undoubtedly taken place. (Hear, hear.) The right hon.
gentleman quoted the other day those three great works—
works of which any Government may be proud—works
which are always referred to when this particular question
is before us. He told us of the Grand Trunk Road, the
Ganges Canal, and the Jumna Canal. But it is not by
taking a few isolated and individual instances that you can
get at what the Government has done in a matter of this
sort. The real and only fair test is to see what proportion
of revenue has been expended ;upon public works ; and
upon this the details are various and conflicting. I find
it stated by one writer that the amount expended on pub-
lic works is half a million sterling yearly, by another the
amount is put at 350,000/. ; but Mr. Kaye, whose work
has so often been quoted in the course of these discussions,
and who is a very high authority upon the subject, says
the total sum expended upon an average of the last 15
years has not exceeded 300,0001.—the aggregate amount of
the revenue of India at the same time considerably ex-
ceeding 20,000,0001. a year. It may be said, however,
why, after all, should it be so grave a charge against
the Government that it does not take to itself the con-
struction of works which in this country is left to the en-
terprise of private individuals. But the position of the
Government in India is altogether different from that of
the Government of this country, or any other Government
in Europe. (Hear, hear.) In almost every part of India,
with the exception of Bengal,we have assumed that which
is virtually equivalent to the proprietorship of the soil.
(Hear, hear.) We are in the position in India of a great
universal landlord. Ido not say whether the Government
is or is not to be properly considered as landlord ; but I do
say, that where the small proprietors, or the small tenants,
call them which you will, hold directly under the Govern-
ment, and pay a land tax, or a rent exceeding 30 per cent.
upon the total produce, a tax so levied cannot be consi-
dered otherwise than the assertion of a virtual proprietor-
ship. The Government, therefore, takes upon itself the
duties of proprietor of the soil ; and I do not think you
will find a landlord in this country who would consider it
sufficient to expend from 2 to 3 per cent. of his gross re-
ceipts upon the repairs and improvements of his land.
(Cheers.) Mr. Kaye has one or two remarks upon this
subject which are well worthy the attention of the house.
(The noble lord then read an extract from the work of Mr.
Kaye, to the effect that over a large portion of north-wes-
tern Provinces of India particularly, all the staple pro-
ducts of the land were at the mercy of the seasons ; that
the droughts were most terrible in their results ; that
Upper India had been visited by periodical famines in con-
sequence ; and that there was absolutely no means of guard-
ing against, the recurrence of those calamities, except by the
abundance of irrigation.) Public works, then are not merely
a matter of profit, but a matter of humanity. (Hear, hear.)
With regard to the proportion of the annual revenue which
the Indian Government bestows upon works of public utility
and necessity, I may again quote the testimony given by
Mr. Kaye, himself, be it remembered, the apologist and
eulogist of the Indian Government. (The noble lord here
read another extract from Mr. Kaye's work, in which that
gentleman states that though there has been a progressive
tendency on the part of the Indian Government to promote
public works, yet the amount of money expended in those
works is miserably small in comparison with the immense ,
sums which have been lavished upon unproductive wars ;
and that roads have not been made, canals have not been
dug, and bridges have not been built, in the number
which the wants of the country demand, solely because the
money necessary for the construction of such works has
been abstracted from the public to meet the expenses of
the ruinous wars in which we have been engaged. Mr. Kaye
added that, in every investigatipn with regard to the work-
ing of the machinery of the government of India, the re-
sponsibility for this waste of treasury, which, properly ex-
pended, might have conferred incalculable benefits upon
the people of India, should be traced to its source.) That
(continued the noble lord) is the language of the apologist
and the eulogist of the Indian Government. But, before
quitting this subject, allow me to give you a single instance
which is known to myself of the extent to which the neg-
lect of public works has impeded the progress of India.
The instance I am about to give is taken from the Madras
presidency; and that presidency is considered as not being
behind any other. The presidency is 20,000 square miles
in extent ; and two years ago there was in the whole pre-
sidency only one road, which was maintained in any tole-
rable order. That road communialte4 from Madras to Ar-
cot and Vallore. Now, let the hous e observe the expense
of transit upon that road. A quantity of goods, weighing
1,000 lbs., costs 4, rupees, or 95., for transit the whole dis-
tance, being more than 3d. per ton per mile ; or, for the
whole distance, 189. per ton. At the same time, the freight
of similar goods from England to Madras was only 7s. per
ton. In other words, it cost more than twice as much to
send the same amount of goods inland from Madras to
Vellore, as it costs to send them all the way from
England to Madras, via the Cape, 15,000 miles by sea.
Of course, the sole defence, the sole argument, attempted
to be set up when a matter of this sort is mentioned is to
say, "We regret it, we lament it, we think it a very un-
satisfactory state of things ; but after all there is a want
of money, and therefore we cannot remedy it." My answer
to that is, that I believe it would be perfectly right for the
Government of India, even with its present debt, to bor-
row money for the construction of public works. (Hear.)
Remember that in India you have no alternative. These
works must be done by the Government, or they will not
be done at all; and when we know that the works at this
moment in operation are paying 10 per cent., or more, on
the expenditure for their construction, independently of
the greater certainty which they give you in the collection
of your revenue—when we find that to the result, I
think it may be reasonably and fairly - e fed that the
Government of India should not allow L. ,eficiency
in
their resources to prevent them from care, ..rg on and ex-
tending works of public necessity, which are also certainly
highly remunerative. The next subject to which I will
briefly allude is that of the judicial administration in India.
And this I will venture to say, that any one who has read
the evidence given before the Parliamentary committees—
any one who has read the work published by Norton on the
Government of India—any one who has read and seen not
merely the assertions and arguments, but the official, in-
disputable, and recorded facts which they contain, must at
once admit that the judicial administration of India is'in a
most unsatisfactory state. I know you have to encounter
great difficulties in your judicial administration in India.
At the very outset you have this difficulty, that the best
legal education can only be obtained in England, and not
in India, and that a knowledge of the manners, habits,
and feelings of the people can only be obtained
in India, and not in England. And, upon the whole, I
think.that the general state of the judicature is one that at
this moment requires your most careful and deliberate con-
sideration. A question equal or next in importance to that
of finance, of judicature, and of public works—is that of
education in India. And I am perfectly ready to admit,
that in the case of Indian education, as well as in that of
the Indian judicature, we have to meet a complication of
difficulties. You had formerly certain classes—they do not
now exist—who were very much averse to any system of
education which was promoted by the English authorities,
and which was calculated, as they thought, to interfere
with the feelings, manners, and habits of the natives. You
have also among Europeans many who, entertaining views
which are perfectly natural, though unsound, believe that
no education should be given to the Hindoos at the expense
of the British Government, unless it is calculated at least
to assist in proselytising the people to Christianity. You
have, moreover, a deficiency of local organisation and local
self-government. through whose instrumentality it might
be possible to raise local funds for the purpose of extending
education over the whole country. lam ready to allow
that all these are obstacles, and obstacles which I do not
desire to underrate. At the same time, when I look at what
has been done, and consider what, even under all the diffi-
culties might have been done, I cannot but think that the
Indian Government has in this respect failed in doing its duty.
The amount expended upon education is about 50,000/. or
60,0001., say the larger sum. This is considerably less than
per cent. on the revenue of the country. Mr. Marsh-
man, in a recent pamphlet, takes a very forcible view of
this. Hear his opinions on the subject—he says, " the sum
devoted to education is so niggardly and so unworthy of a
great company, that I abandon it altogher." The state-
ments of Mr. Marshman are confirmed by the opinion of
the public, and altogether show that, in regard to educa-
tion, the proceedings of the Indian government have been
such as to require a searching examination and inquiry.
I have now concluded. (Hear.) I have to the best of my
ability endeavoured to show to the house that it is impo-
litic as well as inexpedient, to legislate on the subject of
the government of India at the present moment. (Hear.)
I have shown that the dangers of delay so strongly urged
on the other side of the house when first this bill was laid
before it, are futile when they are not imaginary. I have
endeavoured to show that while on the one hand the mea-
sure of the Government effects no substantial reform iu the
present system, on the other it does not profess to substi-
tute a better form for that which now exists. I have en-
deavoured to show, taking one after the other, of the
Indian administrations, and in so doing I have expressed
only my conscientious opinion, that in whatever respect
the Indian Governments may have been successful, and I
freely admit that they have been successful in many most
important matters in administering the territory.. over
which they held control, there is yet, in their administra-
tion of the last 20 years more especially, ample room and
sufficient cause for a strict and searching investigation into
their government, before we proceed either to pass a ver-
dict or approval as regards their past conduct, or before
we decide upon leaving in their hands any portion of
power which they have up to this period of time wielded
in India. I now move the amendment of which I have
given notice :—" That, in the opinion of this house, fp!.
tl
aliteor in fatinformationn
tiss
gne e cfeosrs a
the
yk
et o
peenrambal en
ePnatr 1
gi aomv
eernnttht to etg
o,s i
India ; and that, at this late period of the session, it is
inexpedient to proceed with a measure which, while it
disturbs existing arrangements cannot be considered as a,
final settlement."