The Sun.
London, England, 1860-07-28 00:00:00

raised, and al the question of the malt duties. Therefore,
they might fairly conclude that the financial questions
eouM not occupy less than a fortnight. They were, there-
fore, not likely tb have any evening for the ordinary corn- '
mittee of supply until towards the middle of August. Next
came the question whether they would be able to take sup-
ply at morning sittings. There were many bills which the
Government were going to proceed with, although the
number had been considerably reduced, for not less than 15
bills had been withdrawn, together with several notices of
bills which .had appeared upon the paper. There were,

however, still to be discussed and passed upwards of 40
bills, either originating in this house or coming down from
the House of Lords. This was a very serious prospect,

as they could not go into supply until the middle of
August, and there were besides this upwards of 40
bills, with respect to some of which there were many
amendments on the paper, and others had upwards of 300
clauses. If the business of the house proceeded smoothly
and methodically he was of opinion that it could not rise
before September. But the house was in a very unsettled
state with respect to its legislation, and no one who looked

to the state of its business could venture to predict on what

day in September even it would be able to rise. He had
looked minutely into the question; he had consulted the

best authorities, and he believed it to be the general opi-
nion amongst them that it was extremely difficult if not
impossible to say what time Parliament would rise. A
short time ago there were hopes that they might be able to

rise on the 24th of August, but those hopes were now ma.

terially receding. Now, he must say that this was a very
serious question, for the most important legislation of the
country was put off until it was too late to consider them,
especially most important financial legislation. (Hear.)
It was a great public injury, a great public wrong, and he
did not hesitate to say that if in former days this had been
the practice it would alone have given rise to general cry
for the reform of Parliament. He knew of no greater in-
jury that could be inflicted upon the country than wasting
four or five months on business which did not pass, and
then hurrying over most important matters. They had al-
ready before them five bills of Indian legislation, and two
more were expected. He did not wish to comment in any
spirit of hostility upon the conduct of the Government, but
he simply desired to place before tie house the position in
which they stood with regard to Indian legislation. His
own opinion was that the noble lord at the head of the Go-
vernment would consult the honour of the house if he did
not now press on the legislative business of the
country. On due consideration the Government would
find themselves in an entirely false position with
regard to Indian legislation. He believed he could show
that they had not complied with the provisions of the act
of Parliament which was passed in 1858, and if that were
really so, he thought they would do well to acknow-
ledge the false position in which they were placed, and
withdraw the bills which they had laid upon the table. The
great security which the act of 1858 endeavoured to esta-
blish, was to give the Secretary of State for India the as-
sistance of a council of experience to aid him in the admi-
nistration of Indian affairs. Parliament looked forward to
the probability of a Secretary of State being appointed who
was not acquainted with Indian affairs, and who Nees al-
ways liable at a very short notice to be removed, and under
these circumstances a council composed of men of experi-
ence was provided. Now, the views of Parliament at that
time were so well stated by the noble lord the Foreign Se-
cretary, who took a prominent part in that legislation, that
he would read his words. The noble lord said, No one
could overrate the benefit that would result to the Govern-
ment of India if the Secretary of State were assisted by emi
nent men intimately acquainted with Indian affairs. In the
place of the Court of Directors we are to have a council well
acquainted with India, who will afford information to the
Secretary of State upon any question on which he may re-
quire their assistance and advice. Now, I think this a
great improvement in the Government of India." Again he
said, " I cannot imagine that any Secretary of State would
be so unwise as to set this council to mere routine duties
which might be performed by clerks, instead of consulting
them upon the main points of Indian policy ; and any Secre-
tary of State for India who so acted would but ill discharge
his duty. (Cheers.) I think the Secretary if State would
receive important and highly. valuable assistance from his
council on all great matters of war and general policy."
This was the view upon which Parliament acted in passing
the measure to which he had alluded, and in the act it took
care to insert provisions for carrying out that view. It stated
in one of its provisions that the council should, under the
direction of the Secretary of State for India, and subject to
the provisions of this act, conduct the business of the United
Kingdom in relation to the Government of India; the mean-
ing being that in all matters of Indian legislation the Secre-
tary of State for India should have the assistance and ad-
vice of his council. Accordingly it enacted that all powers
required to be exercised by the Secretary of State shall be
exercised by the Secretary of State in Council at meetings at
which not less than five members of the council shall be pre-
sent, and that such meetings shall be not less than once in
each week. Further, the act provided, in case of difference
of opinion upon any question decided at any such meeting,
the Secretary of State may require that his opinion and the
reasons for it bo entered on the minutes, and any member of
of the council differing from him may, in like manner, re-
quire that his opinion and the reasons bo entered on the
minutes. He (Mr. Horsman) wished the house to observe
how careful Parliament was in passing this act, that every-
thing that was done by the Secretary of State and by his
council should be recorded, and recorded expressly for the
information of Parliament. (Hear, hear.) The act required
further that every order and every communication sent to
India by the Secretary of State, or sent from India to the
United Kingdom, unless the same were submitted to the
members of the council, should be placed in the council-
room at least seven days before such order was made, or for
a certain number of days after such communication was re-
ceived, and that it shall be lawful for any member of the
council to enter upon the minutes his opinion of such order
or communication, a copy of which opinion should be sent to
the Secretary of State. Then came the 25th clause, to which
he would call special attention, and which he was sure the
house would support him in saying that the right hon. gen-
tleman had not complied with; That clause was "If the
majority of the council record their opinions against any pro-
posal submitted for adoption, the Secretary of State shall, if
he do not defer to the opinions of the majority so recorded,
record his reasons for acting in opposition to it." (Cheers.)
The house would see the excessive importance of these pro-
visions, and the reason of the excessive care with which
Parliament inserted them in the act. The reason was this:
They felt the responsibilities, the difficulties, and the dan-
gers of Indian administration. They accordingly appointed
a Secretary of State, who was to have the as-
sistance of a council, and when they differed the
council were on their part to record the reasons of their dif-
ference from the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of
State was on his part to record the reasons of his not acting
in accordance with the views of the majority of his council.
And what was the reason of this ? It was that when any
measure was submitted to Parliament on the authority of
the India department, Parliament might see the reasons on
the one side and on the other—(hear, hear)—and exercise its
power of review, and thus might on full information form its
awn judgment as to the legislation which should be adopted.
(Hear.) He did not think on this point there could be any
difference of opinion in that house, but he wished to point
out the very false, embarrassing, and complicated position
in which they were placed in regard to Indian legislation this
year. It was manifest, he thought, that the various difficulties
of that legislation had been foreseen by the Government and
Parliament of 1858, and on full consideration provided for
as far as possible by the Act of Parliament. It was ob-
viously the intention of the framers of the act he had
quoted that all bills introduced in regard to Indian legisla-
Hen should be well considered beforehand ; that they
should be submitted to the hou,e after full consideration by
the Secretary of State and council; and should be brought
before Parliament under such circumstances as would give
ample opportunity to both houses to discuss them both in
principle and detail. (Hear.) But what had happened
this session ? They had at this moment five bills in refer-
ence to India; before the house, and notices had been given
of two others, which had since been withdrawn. Besides
these, there was a bill coming down from the other house,
and there was the financial question of India in
respect to which they had found it impossible to
obtain an answer from the noble lord as to when it would
be brought forward. He would call attention for a moment
to the dates when these several measures had been intro-
duced. The Indian Army Bill, a measure which proposed to
effect the greatest changes perhaps over made in any part
of her Majesty's dominions within our recollection, was
read the first time on the 21st June. The East India Stock
Bill was brought in on the 20th June. Notice stood for
two bills of which it was difficult to exaggerate the im-
portance, especially of that regarding the civil service of
India—these were to have been brought in on the 233 of
July, but from the opposition and objections made to their
being brought forward at so late a period, the Secretary of
State withdrew the notice. The Superannuation Act
Amendment Bill was introduced on the 24th of July, the
Senior Member of Council Bill on the 21th July, and the
Admiralty Jurisdiction (India) Bill on the 24th July. All
these bills were introduced after the 23d of July. Then
there was the finance question, and although he bad asked
the question twice he was unable to obtain an answer when
that would be brought forward, or if it was to be delayed
until two-thirds of the members had left town for the ses-
sion, and there would be no opportunity for discussing it.
He asked when all these bills were thus crowded in upon
them at so late a period of the year, was not the responsi-
bility largely aggravated by the fact that the most impor-
tant of them was submitted to Parliament without the ap-
proval of the Indian Council ? Was not the fact that all
the members of the Indian Council were opposed o the
Secretary of State in. the matter a aufficient reason for ask-
ing the Government to postpone this legislation for the
present session? (Cheers.) Ent the real point ha would
fix upon the attention of the Government was this : had the
Secretary of State for India complied with the provisions
of the act in bringing before Parliament on the one hand
the recorded dissent of the Council, and on the other the
recorded reasons of the Secretary of State for acting con-
trary to their opinions ? (Hear.) The right hon. baronet
had toll/ the hetiie Mat 110 Trod not thought ib DePoIFgRTY
under the act to ley this information before the house. The
right bon. gentleman sO4, ain only bound to consult my
council in respect to such acts as I ?pay bring forward as
Secretary of State; fills bill is an act Of Up Cabinet, and

therefore lam not bouwl to consult them." What wathe

answer to that ?

The SPEAKER called the right hon. gentleman to
order, reminding him that it was contrary to the rule of the
house to refer to a previous debate and reply to arguments
therein used.

Mr. HORSMAN was not replying to the arguments
used in a debate. The right hon. gentleman had published
his opinions, and he was answering them.
The SPEAKER reminded the right hon. gentleman
that ha had said he would answer the arguments of the
hon. baronet.

Mr. HORSMAN begged pardon; but the right hon.
baronet said, " I am bound to consult the council in respect
to any act of mine as Secretary of State for India, but in
respect of any act of the Cabinet I am:not bound to consult
them." But what was the common sense construction of
the Act of Parliament, and what did Parliament obviously
intend by the pi °visions to which he (Mr. Horsraan) had
referred ? Was it not that the Secretary of State for India

should be the adviser of the Cabinet in all matters concern-
ing India, and being the Cabinet adviser was it not also in-
tended by the act that the council should be the advisers of
the Secretary of State ? (Hear.) And if a question was
. _

so important as to be raised to:the dignity of a Cabinet ques-
tion, aid it not follow that that importance made it the more
essential that the advice of the council should be taken ?
(Cheers.) That was the common sense construction of the

Act of Parliament, and he was sure it was the common
sense construction every man in the house and out of the
house would put upon it.
Sir C. WOOD had to thank the right hon. gentleman
the member for Stroud, in the first place, for giving him
notice of his intention to bring under consideration the bills
in the other House of Parliament ; and, secondly, for the
calm and temperate manner in which he had objected to the
course he (Sir C. Wood) had taken. He would dispose of
that bill—which had not unnaturally excited the amuse-
ment of the house—by informing the right hon. gentleman
that he never saw it until he found it enclosed in a commu-
nication that morning which the right hon. gentleman had
been good enough to send him. It was true that a question
had been pending as to the transfer to the Colonial-office
of the Straits and Singapore, a petition having been pre-
sented from the inhabitants of those settlements in favour
of such transfer. The Governor-General of India concurred
in the proposal, and early in the present year he (Sir C.
Wood) wrote to state that, as far as the Home Government
was concerned, there would be no objection to comply with
the wishes of the inhabitants. On the part, however, of the
India-office, he disclaimed all responsibility of blame with
regard to the bill; and it must, he thought, be obvious to
the right hon. gentleman, if he looked carefully at that bill,
that the words he alluded to were never intended to be
inserted in the bill. The draft bill had got into the hands
of the printer before it was finally revised. But the
greater portion of the speech of the right hon. gentleman
referred not so much to the India business in the house as
to his conduct in intrcducing a bill without consulting the
council. If the right hon. gentleman carefully consulted
the act of parliament for the government of India, he
would find that he had totally misrepresented its object
and spirit. He admitted fully that it was intended that
the Secretary of State, in transacting India business, should
generally act with his council. There were cases in which
he was bound to consult them, and sometimes even though
he might ultimately overrule them. The right hon. baronet
then referred to the 23d and two following clauses of the act
showing the modus operandi prescribed for the transaction
of India business, and said it was plainfrom the 24th clause
that power was given to the Secretary of State to address a
letter to India without submitting it to any meeting of the
council. If, however, he determined to take such a cause
he was bound to place the letter on the council table for
seven days before it was despatched, and every member of
the council had an opportunity of recording his opinion
upon it in a book which was kept for the purpose, and that
opinion so recorded was to be sent forthwith to the Secre-
tary of State. In the council itself, it had never even
been suggested that the Secretary of State was bound
to record his reasons in the event of his overruling the
majority of the members. He maintained that in his ex-
ecutive capacity he was not legally bound to consult the
council in the way the right honourable gentleman sup-
posed. The amalgamation of the Indian army was not a
question which the council could decide ; it was a question
to be decided by the Government and the House of
Commons, and upon such a matter he was under no obliga-
tion to eonsult the council. His own opinion was that it
would have been wrong for him to do so. The object of
their recent legislation with regard to India, as he under-
stood it, was to impose a more clear and undivided respon-
sibility upon the Secretary of State ; and as to the question
of the Indian army, he thought he might say that there
was no difference of opinion between the leaders of the two
great parties in the house. The right hon. gentleman op-
posite (Mr. Disraeli) said, in 1858, in announcing the in-
tention of the Government to issue a royal commission on
the organisation of the Indian army, that it would be their
duty, when the commission had agreed to a report, to come
to a conclusion upon the matter; but that although the
council of India might be very useful in carrying out any
measures on the subject, he did not think it would be right
to leave to them the decision of so important a question.
He entirely concurred in that expression of opinion by the
right hon. gentleman, and he contended that he (Sir C.
Wood) was not open to the censure of having acted ille-
gally or contrary to the spirit of the act. The Government
might be right or they might be wrong in introducing this
measure, but of its importance there could be no question.
The hon. and gallant member (Colonel Sykes) said the
safety of our Indian empire was involved in the measure.
Sp said the Government, but they held that it was involved
not in the maintenance of a local army, but in the intro-
duction of a uniform military system. It was nothing but
an imperative sense of duty that impelled him to bring for-
ward the measure, but from that duty he would not shrink.
The question was asked, who wanted this bill ? He would
reply, the 282 members who voted for it in 1851. The only
way ho knew of testing the sense of the house was by see-
ing on which side there was a majority ; and when he saw
the second reading of the bill carried by five to one, he
must take leave to think that the wisdom of the house ap-
proved of the measure. At all events let them have no
delay, for he was satisfied that all parties in India would
regard even what they might deem to be an adverse decision
as infinitely preferable to being kept in a state of suspense.
Mr. T. BARING observed that if the measure
was of the imp rtance which his right hon. friend now
stated it was, he must say that it could not be discussed
under more unfavourable circumstances. (Hear.) Surely
a bill which her Majesty's Government regarded as neces-
sary to the safety of our Indian dominions ought not to be
introduced at this period of the session. There was still
much information which they ought to have before they
proceeded any further, for at present they had received only
the merest crumbs. (Hear.) All India must know it was
not by hasty decisions that she could be governed ; it was
by consideration of every question, and sifting the reasons
for every measure. (Hear.)
Lord PALMERSTON—I concur with the right hon.
gentleman who brought this subject under consideration
in regretting that so much businesshas accumulated so late
in the session ; but at the same time I must repudiate the
accusations which, by implication at least, have been made
against her Majesty's Government as being the cause of that
accumulation.
Mr. HORS WAN—I avoided saying anything about that.
Lord PALMERSTON—Just so. Everybody knows, and
therefore it is needless to refer to it, that in the early part
of the session questions undoubtedly of very great import-
ance and interest, which it was the duty of her Majesty's
Government to bring under consideration, tended to pro-
duce the result which, in common with the right hon. gentle-
man, I certainly regret. But when he goes a step further,
and endeavours to make out of that state of things a reason
why the measures of great importance now pending should
be thrown over and postponed until another year, I can-
not acquiesce in the conclusion he thus draws.
It is true, no doubt, that satisfactorily to dispose of the bulk
of business which still requires to be transacted, it may be
necessary for the house to sit to a laterperiod than, perhaps,
is the usual course of business in this house ; but at the
same time we have only to look back to former years to see
that it is not unexampled that the business should not be
concluded until near the termination of the month of
August. The moral I shall draw from the statement of the
right hon. gentleman is not that the house should fly from
its duties, and from lassitude or impatience of getting away,
neglect to dispose of matters which it would be competent to
deal with ; but that gentlemen should set their shoulders to
the wheel and devote their minds really to the transaction of
business, and that they should abstain from taking up more
of the time of the house than is necessary for the useful
and practical enforcement of the opinions they entertain,
and of the arguments by which those opinions are to be sup-
ported. But now I must say that what has passed this
evening is rather a departure from the course which the
right hon. gentleman and I should join in recommending;
because we have the first order of the day, after disposing
of the motion for adjournment until Monday,*the Indian
army question, which has been the subject of discussion now
for a considerable period of time on the motion for adjourn-
ment. The hon. gentleman who has just sat down has
made a very animated speech, not merely on the question of
the Indian army amalgamation, but even going back to the
question d isposed of nearly two years ago—the abolition of the
East India Company. A great portion of that speech was oc-
cupied in endeavouring to show that Parliament ought not
to have made a change which they did make. I submit that
quPation would have been more appropriate if the hon. gen-
tleman had waited until the Speaker had left the chair, on
going into committeeon the Indian Amalgamation Bill, and
that discussing by anticipation the measures which are
coming on in their regular order is not a practice which tends
to the despatch of business, or to bringing the session to a ter-
mination at a proper and early period. 'laving said this much
I should bo acting against my own opinion if I went et any
length into that which has been stated. But I must say that
yno fearnrnt
uel namely,
reouitarly to the gm/emir-161 irresponsible Go-
I think much of the argument used on this Indian question
rests on what appears to me an entirely false conclusion,
one the responsible Government—responsible for the conduct
tathi,
affairs
sto
anotherotbfheteohla;lipstihwreeod—Gao:d-ernments in this country--
India ; because, flit is not true, as quoted by the right hon.
gentleman from the speech of my noble friend last year,
that the Secretary of State is to be supreme in his sound,
tad that the council is to be !% ce-Pr0.4147 e4t4g4—no4

responsible to any human being, and being appointed by the
act (very unfortunately I think) for life, you are establishing

an imperium in imperio totally at variance with the funda-
mental principles of representative Government and free

constitution. It seems to me there cannot be a more uncon-
stitutional doctrine entertained than to contend that the

opinion of the Indian Council should be taken against the

opinion which the responsible Government for the time
being may entertain upon questions of this imperial and ex-
tensive character. I quite concur that this amalgamation

of the Indian army is a most important measure—important
it is in one sense—that is to say, my opinion is, and always
has been, that the creation and maintenance of a large local
army in India is pregnant with the utmost danger to our
Indian empire. I derived that opinion from my own

convictions. It is an opinion I entertained from the
very first time the subject was ever mooted, and
that opinion has been strengthened every day by

everything said for it and much that has been said
against it. (A laugh.) It is all very wll to have a local
military force of a small amount in a particular colony. We

may have a locil force at Malta, or at the Cape, or in
Canada, but to constitute, as is now proposed, a local army

of 40,000 men in India, irremovable from that country, I
say, would be to deliver the destinies of India into the hands
of a praetorian band, attended with the utmost danger to
the imperial authority, and I contend there could not be a
more fatal proposal adopted by this house in regard to that
great and important empire. Therefore I look at the ques-
tion as one of the utmost importance, but quite in a different
point of view from that which hon. members opposite view
it. However, I will not go into that now. We have been
discussing the question of adjournment for four hours, only
twice as long as the time occupied by my right hon. friend
in explaining at full length all the reasons upon which he
founded his proposal. My right hon. friend on the 12th of
June stated all the reasons—and 1 never heard a more mas-

terly speech than he made on that occasion, taking, as he
did, a general comprehensive view of every bearing of the
question, and now he is reproached by the hon. member
(Mr. T. Baring) with not having stated or given full infor-
mation to the house as to the grounds upon which the mea-
sure itself was proposed. I shall merely entreat the house
to permit us to get rid of this motion and go into committee
on the bill. In that committee every hon, member willhave
a most appropriate occasion of expressing his opinions. We
think the measure so important that, if the house should not
be able to come to a decision on it to-night, I shall be willing
to postpone from Monday that motion which otherwise
stands for that day, and propose to go on with this bill on
Monday if we cannot go on with it to-night; but I should
hope we might be able to come to a decision now on the
matter. (Hear.)
Mr. DISRAELI—There have been some observations
made with respect to the general state of the business of
this house, and the causes for that state, which it would
hardly be consistent with my duty to pass in silence and un-
noticed. I am unwilling in any way to refer to the past—to
an old grievance—but I cannot help feeling that the remark-
able and, I might almost say, the unprecedented condition
in which the house finds itself, having been summoned to
meet at an earlier period than usual, and with a prospect of
sitting later than any of us have ever experienced, is such
that I should not be doing justice to the subject if I did not
advert to what I believe to be the real causes of that position,
and tracing the cause of that condition to the circumstances
under :which the present Government acceded to office.
(Opposition cheers.) I really am referring to that event in a
statistical and not in a political spirit. The noble lord (Pal-
merston) admitted the great importance, which no one can
question, of the measures which have come `under our con-
sideration, and he said they could not have been proceeded
with earlier, because the house was engaged with other very
important business which took up its time. No doubt the
house was engaged with very important business from the
time that Parliament met, and for a considerable period.
But what was the important business ? The Government,
sanctioned by a majority of the house, bad laid down two
principles of great importance in politics which were to be
accepted by the House of Commons. One was that there
there should be a reform of this house on principles more
democratic than the measure produced by the late Govern-
ment. The other was, that if the late Government were
allowed to remain in office after the general election our re-
lations with France would be in danger. Well, events proved
that the late Government, so far as reading the feeling of the
country as to the principles upon which a reform in Parlia-
ment should be conducted, did not err in supposing that a
more democratic measure than they themselves introduced
would not be acceptable to the country ; and the House of
Commons, which had sanctioned a contrary opinion, upon
reflection and after due consideration and prolonged debate,
had recurred to the opinion the late Government had main-
tained. It did not prove the peculiar discrimination of the
present advisers of the Crown that they took a contrary
course. Then with regard to the relations between this
country and France. It was held out as one of the principal
grounds of a want of confidence in the late Government
that those relations would be in danger if they were allowed
to retain their places. Well, I think it has transpired that
the conduct of the late Government was not of that charac-
ter which should have prevented a good understanding ex-
isting between the two countries, and I think it will be
generally admitted, particularly after the speech with which
the noble lord favoured us a few nights ago, that the rela-
tions between France and England at the present moment
are not more amicable than they were when we quitted office.
I do not find fault with the decision of the House of Com-
mons ; but what was the consequence of their vote ? In the
first place, the Government, who, if they were entitled to
the confidence of Parliament, ought to have had that discri-
mination to have recognised the measure that was adapted
to the necessities of the times and to the inclinations of the
people with regard to parliamentary reform, introduced a
bill on different principles to that introduced by their pre-
decessors. That bill was no doubt a lamentable failure and
grievous disappointment to all sides of the house. But that
lamentable failure occasioned a great loss of time ; and it is
to that circumstance, in the first place, that a great deal of
the unsatisfactory state in which the business of the house
is now placed is owing. With regard to the second point, the
friendly relations between France and England—having
laid that down as the second great cause why we should be
expelled from power—a decision with which we do not want
to quarrel, and which I touch upon now only historically—
it was necessary for the Government to prove that there was
between France and this country, under their auspices, an
extraordinary degree of sympathy, and to demonsti ate that
they were the only statesmen who could produce and carry
measures which would be the happy consequence of that
extreme and happy sympathy. Therefore, there was pro-
duced at the commencement of the session that most extra-
ordinary treaty between this country and France which I
acknowledge was received by acclamation by the house, but
which every man now in his calmer moments looks back to
with regret and apprehension—(no, no)—which has entailed
on this house enormous trouble, and which will bring us
now, in a few days at this very end of the session—at the
fag end of our deliberations—another great Parliamentary
conflict and contest. Well, then, I say it has been in con-
sequence of her Majesty's Government being formed on
these two principles, of carrying a more democratic measure
of Parliamentary reform and of introducing a more intimate
alliance between France and England than it was supposed
could be carried out by their predecessors, and it is in con-
sequence of the ill-conceived and ill-timed and unfortunate
and unhappy measures, whether in the shape of reform
bills or of commercial treaties, which that policy introduced,
that we have, in fact, wasted the whole of this session in
measures which have either totally failed or been withdrawn,
or have been only partially successful, and In a great de-
gree disastrous. There are the two measures of the session
—the Reform Bill and the French Alliance—followdd by
consequences so different from what was anticipated, and
which have led to the state in which the house now finds
itself. The Reform Bill—withdrawn under circumstances
upon which I will not now dwell—the treaty which, though
introduced with acclamation, was followed by a project of
extensive fortifications against our only and prime enemy,
according to the Prime Minister, France. (Cheers.) I say
it is forming a Government on false principles, and wasting
the session, to introduce measures to vindicate these false
principles, this waste of time, and this almost scandalous
position in which we find ourselves. Look at the conse-
quences. I will not talk of small points. I will merely re-
mind the noble lord that the house met in February ; that
the Reform Bill was not introduced till March ; the Bank-
ruptcy Bill not till much later ; and that during this period
days and weeks have been wasted. I come to the measures
now before us, this important group of measures affecting
the future destinies of our Indian empire. Ido not wish to
offer to the Government an unfair opposition. (Oh, oh, from
the Government benches.) I say frankly my desire and wish
is to support her Majesty's Government in their policy
with regard to India. (Oh, oh.) Ido not shrink from the
opinion I expressed in the speech which has been cited by
the right hon. gentleman. Ido not avail myself of any un-
expected opposition which may spring up; but I do say
this, that, instead of wasting our time on moonshiny urea •
sures of Parliamentary reform, and on phantom treaties of
commerce, if the Government had come forward when Par-
liament had first assembled and said, " A great revolution
has taken place in the imperial relations of this country with
India—late measures have rendered it necessary to change
the conditions of our power in that country—and in conse-
quence the House of Commons has assembled and must not
shrink from governing that great country with intelligence
and adequate knowledge," then you might have come for-
ward with your measures, and I do not think you would
have had a session barren of results. If, with lingering ad-
miration for the glorious career of the East India Company,
we had said, "`yell, after all, it was a statesmanlike deci-
sion, fully in accordance with the spirit of the times, that
there should be an unity of Government, that we should no
longer be found existing under different rules and a different
policy, and that Parliament had acquired a great responsi-
bility," and if the Ministry, sensible of that responsibility,
had shown on the first occasion that they were equal to it,
and had appealed to the knowledge and thought of Parlia-
ment to pass measures, provided they were worth passing.--
I say it would have been no mean sesss,oz of Parliament, and
we could have dealt with a.(l,e,u,sre measures for the Govern-
ment of Indisseewo could, at the end of the session, have ap-
SeAled with confidence, ;b 45w prrS'n LI our Speaker, to the
overeign, and have said that we had brought up these hills
as the mature result of statesmanlike thought Qud adequate
knowledge, and, have shown ourselves, worthy of the occa-
sion, and of the great tv,lst And new responsibility we had
incwrecit DTA is that Ql3 proen,t condition? No; weeks,