The Sun.
London, England, 1833-07-12 00:00:00

might be made, without impeding the principle of th
plan, which was to insure their durability.
Mr. BUCKINGHAM was quite sure though it migh,
be a subject of compromise, it would be right to ascertain
whether that compromise was favourable. The questiot,
of compromise appeared to him to be one which it woul.
he very proper for the Government itself to entertain. I
appeared to him that 10 years would be quite sufficient
to give a feeling of durability, and if it was necessary two
or three years notice might be given, before any further
alteration in the term was made.
Mr. C. FERGUSSON did not think there would be
my additional security by adopting the clause.
Mr. WYNN did not at all approve of the proposed
arrangement. He thought it advis 'hie, instead of limit.
ing any particular period of ten or twenty years, that ne
term should be assigned, but that each party should have
power to determine the agreement, on giving to the other
a particular notice. The subject was one of immense
importance, and involved the interests, not only of the
commerce of this country, but also of millions of the in
habitants of India ; and it was very material that the
attention of the House should be recalled to it in a much
shorter period than twenty years. Should they now
vest the power of Government fora period of twenty years
it would be impossible for Parliament to terminate the
arrangement before the expiration of that long term, un-
less there was so gross an act committed by the Company
as would justify the Attorney General in issuing a scire
fucias. It was the duty of Parliament to take
care that the public interests did not suffer, as he
was sure they would by granting to the Company the
long period of twenty years. If his proposal to fix no
specific period, but allow each party a due notice to ter-
minate the arrangement were not agreed to, he should
certainly vote for the shorter period of ten rather than
twenty years.
Mr. W. WHITMORE would also vote for the shorter
period. It was of essential consequence to the in-
terests of this country and of India, that Parliament should
not tie up its hands for so long a period as
20 years without reserving to itself the opportunity of
revising and looking at the effects of the experiment which
was now about to be made by vesting the Government of
India in the Board of Directors. Mr. Macaulay said the
term of 20 years was originally the proposition, not of the
Government but of the Company. He agreed with the Hon.
Member for Sheffield that the Ha use had a power to revise any
arrangement which the Government had made; but he did
not see why it should be treated as a nullity ; on the con-
trary, he thought strong reasons should be required before
they set aside any patt of an arrangement founded
on a negotiation of which they generally approved.
It was suggested to him that the best criterion by which
to know whether a country was well or ill governed, was
the state of its finances—certainly that was so. Now if
the Government of India was so bad as to throw its
finances into confusion, so that they should require to
apply to Parliament, then that would let in the whole
question in the same manner as was done in 1773 and

in 1784.
Mr. MARJORIBANKS agreed with every sentiment
that had fallen from the Hon. Member for Leeds. He
did not wish to see India made a mere experimental Go-
vernment, and therefore he would oppose the amend-
ment. .

Mr. LYALL said that, as a Director, it was impossi-
ble for him to recommend to the Proprietors that
they should assign over the whole of their
assets without having the Government of India secured
to them for a considerable term of years. He could as-
sure the House that not one of the Directers wished to
retain his seat for a single hour after it was found that
they did not benefit both the people of India and England.
One strong argument, however, in favour of the longer
term would be the very great fluctuation in the
value of the stock which would be consequent upon the

frequent discussion of the question, by which many might
be ruined who depended upon their stock.
Sir M. W. RIDLEY would support the clause as it
stood. When the House passed even a Turnpike Bill, in
order to give a feeling of certainty to it, it fixed the term of
21 years, and surely in a question of such magnitude they
would not depart from such a wise rule.
Mr. G. YOUNG said the House was placed in an
embarrassed situation by the turn the debate had taken,
and the declaration of the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr.
Grant), that the House should bear in mind that this
was a compromise, although they bad been before told
that the delegation of the government of India to the
Company for twenty years, was done upon principle only,
and not upon any compromise. He for one was wholly
at a loss to conceive, as the Company had lost their
trading powers, what interest they could possibly have
in having the Government of the country continued in
theca.—(Hear, hear.) As to whether the period of the
Charter should be ten or twenty years, it could not be
argued that the greater period would better insure th
payment of the dividends than if it were for only ter
years. The payment of the dividends would be insured
in either case; besides, as the debt was not wholly redeem-
able until 1870, the Charter would fall far short of
that period if it were to be granted for twenty
years..—(Hear.) He should support the amendment.
Mr. GRANT said he had been misunderstood as to
what he meant by a compromise ; all he meant to say was,
that as Government might be supposed of taking too much
on the one hand, and giving too much on the other, the
measure had been founded on conciliatory terms.
Sir R. INGLIS said, the question was, how could the
Government of India be best conducted, and with regard
to the interests of that country as well as of England ? As
to the period, and whether it should be 10 or 20 years, he
should prefer the latter, because if it were for 10 years it
would be virtually only seven years, as the last two or
three years would be occupied in discussing and agitating
the question of renewing it ; so if it were for 20 year,, it
would be virtually 17 years.

Mr. WYNN, in explanation, said he considered that
the whole political government was vested in the India
Board ; and that the Board for the management of ship-
ping could only be considered a subordinate one, and was
certainly not political in its exercise beyond affording a
check upon his Majesty's Government. He would not
subscribe to the perfection of the system that had been
hitherto practised in India; for he could not f,rget
that the natives and half castes were excluded

from all employment in situations where they could be
more effective than Europeans, and at a much smaller
cost. This was a system the India Board could not per-
haps check ; and the House would now see whether the
new system of employing natives and half-castes would
be carried into effect, or whether the proposition had been
merely introduced as a piece of declamation.
Mr. C. GRANT also explained.
Mr. FINCH, in supporting the amendment of the
Hon. Member for Middlesex, felt certain that if the ques-
tion was brought forward at the end of ten years, every
thing required for the interest of the public would be
taken into consideration, and the honour of Parliament
would not be compromised by any unfair act being com-
mitted towards the East India Company. On the ques-
tion being put from the Chair—
Mr. HUME observed that it had been sug-
gested to him that it would be better to allow
the clause to be filled up, and introduce his amend-
ment on the end of the clause. He should there-
fore, at the conclusion of the clause, propose an amend-
ment, to the effect that, at the termination of ten years,
upon two years' notice, Parliament should be at
liberty either to terminate the Company's Charter,
or to take such steps to amend it as it might think proper.
The clause having been filled up the Hon. Member
proposed his amendment.
Mr. R. GORDON was prepares! to contend, that for
the good government of India, and for the proper
working of this Bill, it was expedient that the Conn
of Proprietors, and the Court of Directors, should
hive a fixed term for the administration of India. The
best security for the payment of the dividends would
be the good management of the proprietors.—(Hear,
hear.) The second clause already gave Parliament power
to exercise control over the Court of Directors.
Mr. ROBINSON admitted it was true, that this Bill,
in its present shape, gave the Directors the govern.
ment of India for 20 years, but the government would
be subject to a species of control by Parliament, for Parlia-
ment would superintend the Board of Control. Parliament
had the power at any time to repeal any law by the Gover •
noes-General, and there was another provision—viz., that
annual reports were to be made, which would enabla
the House constantly to have its eye on the proceed-
ings of the Court of Directors, and without detaininv
the House further, he would merely say that they would
not let out of their bands the superintendence of the
Board of Directors on so important a question as the
future good government of India.
After a few observations from Mr. CUTLAR FER
GUSSON and Mr. WYNN, who were frequently inter
rupted by cries of " Qustion,"
The CHAIRMAN stated that it was now nearly three
o'clock, and that if the Committee did not proceed to a
division before three o'clock, they would not be able to de-
vide upon it to-day.
Mr. BUCKINGHAM supported the amendment of the
Hen. Member for Middlesex.—(Hear.) In conclusion
the Hon. Member suggested that during the con-
tinuance of the discussion on this Bill, the morning sit-
tings should continue till six o'clock, the House then
adjourning for five hours, in order to afford Members