The Sun.
London, England, 1858-02-19 00:00:00

ber f:Or Aberdeen was chairman of the company at the time
that the troops were returning from the Crimea, but he
did not avail himself of the services of any of them, al-
though they were much required in India, while Govern-
ment, with more prudence, sent out 21,000 men, and also
the German Legion, to the Colonies. Had 10,000 or
12,000 men been sent to India we would have been spared
the recent disasters. With respect to the colonisation of
India, notwithstanding that we have had possession of
India for 100 years, there were not 10,000 European settlers
.1n the whole Peninsula, although there were parts of it,
especially the country around Sindah, well adapted for
colonisation ; and there was a marked contrast in the fide-
lity of the natives to the independent settlers and to the
servants of the company. The company has laid claim to
great improvements, but they had been forced upon them by
public opinion, and so unskilfullydid they manage financial
matters that the rate of exchange with India increased
from 6 to 12 per sent., involving a loss of from 200,003/. to
300,000/. to the revenues of India. He would like to know
what steps had been taken since 1837 to improve the means
of communication in Lower Bengal? (Hear.)
Sir E. B. LYTTON said the right hon. gentleman the
First Lord of the Admiralty had complained that his hon.
friend the member for Huntingdon (Mr. T. Baring) should
have rested his objection to this bill on +: he ground of time.
With regard to the measure itself, which he (Sir E. B.
Lyttton) was riot disposed to discuss at any length, he
thought it audacious, incomplete, and ill-considered. It
was audacious, inasmuch as it affected the conversion of an
administrative body, which, whatever might be its faults,
provided a check for every hasty or unwise proposition
on the part of the Imperial Government. It was ineom-
plate, mit did not afford a single restraint upon the preci-
pitate or despotic enactments. It was ill-considered, as
upon so simple a point as the mere number of the council
it proposed to create, there was not a single gentleman
practically acquainted with the affairs of India who would
not tell them that that number was preposterous and inade-
quate to get through the amount of business which would
fall to its share. It was ill-considered, because the Govern-
ment asserted, and no doubt believed, that it would in-
crease their patronage. The patronage by the Minister
would be enormously increased, and in that direction
which would be peculiarly dangerous in that house. The
noble lord at the head of the Government said that there
was always a cry that this was not the right time for change.
The noble lord was unquestionably the highest authority
of any man living as to the right time for changing.
(Cheers and laughter.) He (Sir E. B Lytton) was surprised
that so acute a statesman could not distinguish between a
hollow cry and that which was real and true. With regard
to the question of delay, what was the noble lord's reply to
the noble lord the member for London with regard to the
Reform Bill ? The noble lord said it was not the right
time, because of the war with Russia, and now the
noble lord said this was the time for dealing with
India now that we were at war there. He (Sir B. Lytton)
objected to legislate for India in a time of war. We should
not always be at war in India, although, if it depended on
the ;noble viscount, we always might be. (Cheers.) With
regard to the proposed council board it would be composed
of young men, who would be imbued with a lively sense
of further promotion in the hands of the Minister of the
day. The next two months might determine our peaceful
occupation of India, and how was it that the noble lord
proposed to pass those two months ? Why, by listening
to diatribes against the rapacity of the East India Company
—diatribes that would be published from one end of India
to the other. What would the Orientals say when they
read them? The Orientals were always averse to change,
and the Chancellor of the Exchequer told them that our
empire in India had been acquired by unparalleled rapacity
and violence. How would the natives of India construe
such language when the time came for treaty with the re-
bels ? Mr. Samuel, in his despatch which had been laid
before the house, stated that everything that appeared in
the English papers that could be construed into being
favourable to the rebels was easily translated and dissemi-
nated. During the long course of the noble lord's career
did it ever ocour to him until now that there was evil in
the system of double government for India ? The noble
lord now said that more responsibility was required. But
what said the First Lord of the Admiralty ? He declared
that when he was President of the Board of Control his
authority was as absolute as that as the Secretary for the
Colonies or any other secretary. What particular had the
company foiled the Government in their endeavour to put
down the rebellion. On the contrary, had not the com-
pany supported the Government in every particular, and
yet this was the time selected to destroy that company
and fix upon it the opprobrium of dismissal. And that
was by a Government which had plunged the country into
a war with China, of which no one could see the end, and
few could see the object. (Cheers.) This was the
time selected to crush that body which had proved
itself so stanch, and which was now surrounded by so
many difficulties. The First Lord of the Admiralty had
dwelt upon the advantage of establishing the name of the
Queen in India. No doubt that would be a great advan-
tage, but nothing could be more obvious than that the com-
pany were then trustees of the Crown, now all the aots had
to be ratified by a Minister of the Crown. So that if they
framed an act to-morrow that the Government should be
carried on in the name of the Queen, that would not
alter the relative position of the Board of Control and the
company. Admitting some of the inconveniences of the
existing system, could they not remedy those inconve-
niences without destroying the company ? But, supposing
that the company ought to be destroyed, and even that
this was the right time to destroy it, was that a reason
why they should accept the proposition of the Govern
ment ? It was held that, in the council that was to be
created, they would be enabled to appoint soma of the
most efficient of the Court of Directors, and yet it was
proposed to destroy that company. He doubted, indeed,
whether the Court of Directors would consent to be nomi-
nees. The right hon. gentleman the Secretary of the
Board of Control shook his head. He (Sir E. B. Lytton)
did not think there was much in it, but he shook it.
(Laughter.) The noble lord at the head of the Govern-
ment desired the absolute authority to be placed in the
Crown. What would be the position of the House of Com-
mons then? If any young member were to ask a question
as to what were the intentions of Scindia, or what was the
meaning of Holkar, the reply might be that, without
meaniug anything personal, the question was an extremely
absurd one. (Laughter.) Before that house could mako
themselves competent to judge with diPcrimination of an
Oriental policy they must learn to orientally° themablvey.
They might pass a law which they might think was ex-
tremely mild and conciliatory to the Hindoo, and yet that
Hindoo might consider it the most exquisite torture that
could be inflicted, because its penalty might be curried
into the next world. Hitherto the discussion in Parlia-
ment on India had been productive of good, because they
seldom acquired the warmth and colouring of party. Pass
this law and it would cease to be so. Pass this bill and he
believed that they would never actively interfere with the
affairs of India unless in the interest of party to serve
some Government, or, perhaps, to imitate the example of
the Chancellor of the Exchequer to cast a stain upon some
illustrious name. This was not the moment to legislate,
but to arm. (Cheers.) This was the moment when they
should not damp the ardour of their countrymen as they
had been doing by stigmatising their own rule as that of
perfidy and rapine. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had
told them that the empire of India was no boon to England.
Whatever opinions might be held with regard to that
empire which had passed through the perils of a mutinous
army was now to be exposed to the much more dangerous
ordeal of an organised favouritism and jobbing. That
empire was won by the valour and intellect of the middle
classes, and it was for the members of that house who
avowed themselves the representatives of that class now
to determine whether they would allow that empire to be
governed by official imbecility and ministerial corruption.
( Cheers.)

Lord JOHN RUSSELL—The hon. baronet who just
gat down added, by his eloquent speech, another illustra-
tion of the strange nature of this debate. The hon. gen-
tleman the member for Huntingdon, who moved the
amendment, says that this is not a time to legislate for
India, and, in enforcing hie views with his usual ability,
Confined himself to the topic of his own resolution. Now I
must say fairly, that if he had gone into the Cabinet with
his reasons, and was successful in persuading the Minis-
ters of the Crown that it would be better to defer for
another year the consideration of the Indian question,
when they could enter upon it with more knowledge and
calmer minds, the house would sit down content. But
the position of the question now is, that the Ministers of
the Crown having proposed the question, and having had
now three night's debate upon it, during which very feat
speakers urged his views, it was entirely a different mat-
ter. The supporters of the hon. gentleman's motion urged
that the present form of the government of India was not
very desirable, that however it should be kept as nearly as
possible to the form in which it now exists, and that the
greatest danger may be apprehended if any great altera-
tion took place. The question, then, was, what will be
its position if the house should agree with the hon niem-
ber for Huntingdon? Will the house, or anybody out of
the house, be satisfied if no alteration should take place ;
would it be wise to leave the question in such a position ;
and would there not be the greatest doubt, both here and in
India, as to the meaning of the resolution proposed ?
Would not all men's minds be turned to the question,
whether the House of Commons meant to alter the govern-
ment of India, or whether it would be deferred ior this
year, or many years to come? I could understand a reso-
lution come to by the house that they were content with
the government of India—l could understand the wisdom
of carrying out that resolution, if the noble lord at the
head of the Government had leave to bring in a bill. Bat
I cannot see the wisdom of adopting a proceeding by
which the whole question will be bound up and allowed to
remain in suspense and doubt for another year, when no
man could see what would be the issue of our delibera-
tions? I hope, therefore, the house will net agree to the
motion of the hon. gentleman, the member fur Hunting:
don. (Hear.) I confess, however, that I am not much
struck with the statement, however plausible, that legisla-
tion willbe'useless and dangerous white the revolt continues
in India. We legislated for Catholic Emancipation when
Ireland was on the verge of a civil war ; we legislated for
reform when the whole country was in a state of tumult
and confusion ; and on the corn laws when the public mind
was far from being tranquil. The house hes at all times
been equal to any crisis that may arise. It has always le-
gislated with prudence and wisdom, and proved itself equal
to the emergency. I will, thereiore, sir, now;address myself
to the question really before the house, whether we should
or should not [make a change in the government of India.
I think we may conclude, if it should be the opinion of the
house to carry the resolution, that, setting aside the pro-
posal of the Government, the whole question will remain
in abeyance for some time to come. What is the petition
of the East India Company? I am quite ready to admit
their merits, that they accomplished great things, rind con-
ferred lasting benefits on the country. I remember hearing
a gentleman say, who went through all the vicissitudes of
the first French revolution, that men always guarded
against the dangers which wore past and never to what are
to come. Now, what is our present position with regard
to the East India Company ? It is quite true, though toe
Chancellor of the Exchequer was much blamed for saying
so, that all parties in the house wero indignant at the ag-
gressions ma le in India, and carried on by the then Go-
vernor-General. Mr Dundas brought the question on, and
after a three hours' speech, moved that Mr. Hastings be
recalled. The directors of the Company, however, thought
one way, and the proprietors another—the whole thing
was in confusion, and Mr. Hastings remained. Mr. Pitt
and Mr. Fox then endeavoured to remedy the evil, and it
was at last agreed on that the power of appointing the
Governor-General should be vested in the Crown, as en
effectual check to the directors and proprietors. From 1781
to the present day there was no reason to complain of th 3
aggressions of Governors-General. The danger they bad
now to meet was not that precisely which they had in
1784, and I do, therefore, say, do not apply a remedy
which would be fit only for our ancestors 70 years ago.
Tie:terzi:rrdo,tnhear.poiintticid view in which this question
. may
be loss of authority on they
part of the East IndiaY jogmpaany. They were formerly a
great and
of.monopoly. They
with great polit'
a factory, and i
Powerful Company. Th•y had, in fact, powers
hat the trade of the East, coupled
anotherhaving here a fort and thole
, tory combined. t*e place perhaps a fort and a fac-
"4"l., hear.) What has been.done since