The Sun.
London, England, 1858-01-21 00:00:00

JANUARY 21, 1858.

they trust may be communicated to them at the earliest
possible period.—We have, &c.,
" Rolp D. MVTGLICII,
" F Omuta.
" The Right Eton. Viscount Palmerston, KG., &c,

• " Gentlemen,— "`d4, Piccadilly, Jan. 18.
your jeint letter of the-31st December upon
I have hrd the honour 'of receiving
the subject
of the measure which it is the intention of her Majesty's
Government to propose with reference to the future
system to be established for:the government of India ;
and beg
to assure you, that the observations and
opinions which you have therein expressed will be duly
onions7—first, because
considered by her Majesty's Government.
" Eforbear from entering at. present into any exarni•
nation of those obeervatioes arid
pi
any correspondenCe with you on such matters would be
most conveniently carried on through the usual official
channel of the Pieeident of the India B otrd ; and,
eecondle, breathe the groundS on which the intentions
of her Majesty's Governmeue,have been formed, awl the
detailed arrangements of the
inevure whieji they mean
to proposes, will best be explained when that measure
"I have the honour to beentlene:
shall be submit, ed to the eoneoleration of Pailiament.
servail, , g
''PALMERSTON.
, your obedient
"R. D. Mangles, Eeq.
"Sir Frederick Currie, kc."
The reading of the letter written on belial of the
CoMpany was frequently interrupted by applause'
Tne CIIAIRUAN then sail that that letter did not
represent all they bad &bile. It was very
clear that
his lordship did not give theme milli inf"rnOtion in his
reply, (A. laugh.) The director..,however, had prepared
a petition to the Legislature against the measure; and if
it were ;The wish of the Court to have it read, the
directors were quite willing to indulge them in that
respect. (Cries of " Read, read.")
The SECRETARY then read the following petition :
" To the Hon. the Commons of the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Ireland in Parliament assembled,
" The humble petition of the East India Company,
" She eetb, —That your petitioners, at their own
expense, and by the agency of their own civil and
military servants, originally
acquired for this country
its magnificent eoipire in the Best.
" Tuat the foundations of this empire were laid by
your petitioners, at that time neither aided nor controlled
by Parliament, at the same period at which a successi.,n
of administrations under the c mere]: of Parliament were
losing to the Crown of Great Britain another great
empire on the opposite side of the Atlantic.
" That, during the period of about a century which
has since elapsed, the Indian posseesione of this country
nave been governed and defended from the resources of
those possessions, without the smallest cost t the British
exchequer, which, to the Lest of your petitioners'
knowledge and belief, cannot be said of any
other of
the numerous foreign dependencies of the Crown.
"That it being manifestly improper that the adininis
tratiun of any British possession should be independent
of the general government of the empire, Parliament
provided in 1783 that a department of the Imperial
Government should hate full cegeizence of, and power
of coatr .1 over, the acts of your petitioners in the
administration of India ; since which time the home
branch of the Indian Government has been conducted
by the joint counsels and on the joint reoponeibility of
your petitioners and of a Minister of the Crown.
" That this arrangement bas at subsequent periods
undergone reconsiderkvion liorn the Legislature, and
various comprehensive and careful Pat li ementary inquiries
have been made into its practical operation ; the result
of which has been, on each occasion, a renewed grant to
your petitioners of the powers exercised by them in the
administration of India.

" That the last of thee occasiono was so recent as
1853, in which year the arramg,ernents which bad t-xisted
for neatly three-quarttra of a century were, with certain
till subsist.
petitioners have re-
eme
eTi
dfihcaaanftti oi
nnn sot,itmwr nLat
tet
nt
frothed ,ninga
,nhdye
hander Majesty's
Ministers of
their itrenion to propose to Parliament a bill for the
purpose of placing the government of her Majesty's East
lodian dominions under the direct authority of the
Crown, a change necessarily involving the abolition of
the East India Company as an instrument .of govern-
ment.

" That your petitioners have not been informed of the
reteons which have induced her Majesty's Ministers,
without any previous inquiry, to come to the resolution
of putting an end to a system of administration which
Parliament, after inquiry, ddiherately confirtufd and
sanctioned less than five years ago, and which in its
modified fora► has not been in op ration quite four years,
and cannot be considered to have undergone a sufficient
trial during that snort period.
"That your petitioners do not understand that her
Majesty's Ministers impute any failure to thosearrange-
mon+ s, or bring any charge, either great or small,against
your petitioners. But the time at which the proposal is
made compels your petitioner! to regard. it as arising
from the calamitous events which have recently occurred
in India.

etbßee
umgnisit
army,
searchingry,
and
investigation
your
intooettihtiieonn7nrsti
nytit
‘‘challengeth
the causes, whether reeiote or immediate,
duced that mutiny, They have instructed the Ge•
swimsuit of India to appoint a commission for con-
ducing such an inquiry . on the sleet ; and it is their
most anxious wish that
instituted in this hat a similar inquiry may toe
country by your honourable house,
in order that it
may. be ascertained - hether any
thing, either ;n the
meat of India, or in en.
constitution of the Home Govern
the conduct of these by whoa it has
been administered,
mutiny, or has in had any share in producing the
suppression ; and any way impeded the measures for its
whether the mutiny itself, or any
circumstance connected with it, affords any evidence of
the failure of the arrangementsunder which India is at
presen ' administered
"That were it
failed, the failure even
true that these arrangements had
the East India could constitute no reason for divesting
Company of its functions and transferring
them to her Majesty's
system her Majesty's
The duty Government have the deciding voice.
nate measures imposedand upon
the Court of Directors is to origi-
nate
been remiss • frame drafts of instructions. Even had
discreditable to then this duty, this remissness, however
responsibility of inselves, could in no way absolve the
nister for India possesses, her Majesty's Government, since the Mi-
power of requirin and has frequently exercised, the
any subject into g that the Court of Directors should take
consideration, and prepare a draft des-
patch for his approval.
Her Majesty's Government are
sense accountable for all that has been
done, and for all that h
done. Your as been forborne or omitted to be
only in so far petitioners, on the other hand, are account-
ablemoted by themselvaess the act or omission has been pro-
" That'
, under these •
of India had been circumstances, if the administration
submit, have been a failure, it would, your petitioners
a remedy would erewhat unreasonable to expect that
ruling authority
which
ird in annihilating the branch of the
could not be the one principally in
fault, and might be al together blameless, in order to con-
centrate all powers in
decisive share in eve the branch which had necessarily the
that the ry error, real or supposed. To believe
administration of India would have been more
free from error if it had been conducted by a Minister of
the Crown, without the aid of the Court of Directors,
would be to believe that the Minister, with full power to
govern India as he pl( is ead, has governed ill because he has
had the assistance ofvisors. experienced and responsible ad-
" That your petitioners
themselves at the x however do not seek to vindicate
claim their full share expense
of any other authority ; they
in which India has f the
responsibility of the manner
sponsibility is to there been
practically governed. That re-
pride. They are not a subject of humiliation, but of
have been, and haveconsciousdeserved
that their advice and initiative
egoef
rved to be, a great and potent
element in the conduct
complete assurance that th'ffairs in India. And they feel
and the more light thrown 0 more attention is bestowed,
7Pen India and its administra-
tion, the more evident it wil be
in which they have borne a pa
that the Government
the purest in Intention, but one
act, ever known among mankindef the most beneficent in
present generation in particular,..that during the last, and
ments one of the most rapidly kelt! has. been in all depart-
the world ; and that at that line 'roving Governments in
When •
I posed a greater number of important this change is pro-
-1 a state of more rapid progress tha imprqeements are in
and they are satisfied that whateenerat any former period ;
may be hereafter effected in 'edits- further improvements
development of germs already ,l can only consist in the
o foundations already laid, mid' anted, and in building
er their a •
all great measure by their expre„in,t . authority, and in
" That such, however, is not the • ructions.
made on the public mind, either ihineression likely to be
by the ejection of your petitioners ngland or in India,
in the Indian Administration. It fromin the place they fill
men to propose the complete abolitionot usual with states-
vernment of which the practioal on of a system of go-
damned, and it might be generally i peration is not con-
posed. measures, if carri,-d into effect at
from the pro-
that the East India Company having , the present time,
an important portion of the Aehnint7sen entrusted with
so abused their trust as to have prod ration of India, have
surrection, and nearly lost India toeeed a sanguinary bl-
and that, having thus crowned a lon the British empire;
meat, they have, in deference to pudicoareer of misgovern-
deservedly cashiered for their misconduct,indignation, been
"That if the character of the East
alone concerned, your petitioners might India Company were
the verdict of history. They are satiel'e willing to await
will do them justice. And they are confident ed that posterity
now, justice is done to them in the minds that, even
Majesty's Ministers, but of all who have not onl \ of her
competent judges of the subject. But though any
claim to be
peti-
tioners could afford to wait for the reversalough your
of condemnation which will be believed of the verdict
world tohave been passed on them end throughout the
. .
,their government
by the British nation, your petitioners cannot look without
the deepest uneasiness at the effect likely
the minds of the people of India. To ~b, to be produced on
correctly the name may express the fact lc however in-
correctly British G 0-
vernment in India is the Government of the East India
Company. To their minds the abolition of the company,
will for some time to come mean the abolition of the whole
system of administration with which the company is iden-
tified. The measure introduced simultaneously with the in-
flux of an overwhelming British force, will
be coincident
with a general eatery, in itself most alarming to
from most of the organs of opinion in this country,their fears,
as well
as of English opinion in India 1,
' eneeeeing the past policy
of the Government on the express ground that it has been
too forbearing, and too considerate towards the nati •
ves.
The people of India will at first feel no certainty that the
new Government, or the Government under a new name,
which it is proposed to introduce, wiu hold awl boned

J, bar.

by the pledges of its predecessors. They will be slow to lie
have that a Government has been deetroyed, only to be
followed by another which will act on the same principles,:
and adhere to the same measures. They cannot suppose
that the existing organ of administration would be swept
away without the intention of reversing any, part of its
policy. They will see the authorities both et home and in
India, surrounded by persons vehemently urging radical
changes in many parts of that policy; and interpreting, as,
they must do,the change in the instrumen t ofgovernment al
a concession to these opinions and feelinee, they can hardly
fail to believe that, whatever else may be inericle•l, the Go-
vernment will no lone•be, be permitted to observe that strict
impartiality between those who profess its own creed and
those who hold the creeds of its native subjects, which
hitherto chacterisid if - that their strongest and most
deeply rooted feelings will, henceforth be treated with much
less regard thin heretofore ; and that a 'directly aggressive
policy towards everything in their habits, or in their
usgges and customs, which Euglisbus,n deem objection-
able, will no longer be confined to individuals and private
ass ,ciations, but will be banked by all the power of
Government.

'`And h re your petitioners'think it ielP,rtant to oh:
serve, that in abstaining as they have done from all ingsr-
ference with any of the religious practice's-of the people of
India, except such' as are abhorrent to humanity, they have
acted not only from their , ewn conviction of what is just
and expedient, but iu accordance with-the avowed inten-
tions and express enactments of the" Legislature, framed,
'in order that regard should be had to the civil and 're=
ligious usages of the natives,' and also that suits, civil-or,
criminal, against the natives' should be cdeducted adeord-'
ing to such rules 'as may accommodate the same to .the
religion and manners of the natives.' That their policy'in
this respect has been successful by the fact
that, during a military inutiny,,said to have been caused
by unfounded apprehensinOalf danger to religion, the heads
of the native State.and the masses of the
•population have
remained faithful to the British Government. Your
petitioners need hardly observe how very different would
probably have been the issue of the late events if the native
princes, instead pf aiding in the repression of the rebellion,
had put themselves at its head, or if the general population
had joined in the revolt; aud-how probable it is that both
these contingencies would have occurred -if any real ground
had been given for the persuasioit that tho'British Govern-
ment intended to identify itself -with proselytism ; and it
is the honest conviction of your petitioners tint any
serious apprehension of a change of policy in this respect
would be likely to ba followed, at no distant period, by a
general rising throughout India.
" That your petitioners have seen with the greatest pain
the demonstrations of indiscriminate animosity towards the
natives of India on the part of our countrymen in India
and at home, which have grown up since the late unhappy
events. They believe these sentiments to be fundamen-
tally unjust ; they know them to be fatal to the possibility
of good government in India. They feel that if such de-
monstrations should continue, and especially if weight be
added to them by legislating under their supposed influ-
ence, no amount of wisdom or forbearance on the part of
the Government will avail to restore that confidence of
the governed in the intentions of their. rulers without
which it is vain even to attempt the improvement of the
people.
"That your petitioners cannot contemplate without dis-
may, the doctrine now widely promulgated, that India
should be administered with an especial view to the benefit
of the English who reside there, or that in its administra-
tion any advantages should be sought for her Majesty's
subjects of European birth, except that which they will
necessarily derive from their superiority of intelligence,
and from the increased prosperity of the people, the im-
provement of the productive resources of the country, and
the extension of commercial intercourse. Your petitioners
regard it as the most honourable char tcteristic of the go-
vernment of India by England, that it has acknowledged
no such distinction as that of a dotninent and a subject
race, but has held that its first duty was to the people of
India. Your petitioners feel that a groat portion of the
hostility with which they are assailed is caused by the be-
lief that they are peculiarly the guardians of this principle,
d that, so long as they have any voice in the administra
tion of India, it cannot easily be infringed ' • and your peti-
tioners will not conceal their belief that their exclusion
from any part in the Government is likely, at the present
time, to be regarded he India as a first successful attack ou
that principle.

. .
" That your petitioners, therefore, most earnestly repre-
sent to your honourable house that even if the contem-
plated change could be prove f to be in itself ad visable, the
present is a most unsuitable time for entertaining it ; and
they most strongly and respectfully urge On your honour-
able house the expediency of at least‘ deferring any such
change until it can be effected at :period when it would
not be, in the minds of the people of India, directly con-
nected with the recent calamitous events, and with the feel-
ings to which those events have either given rise or have
afforded an opportunity of manifestation. Such postpone.
ment, your petitioners submit, would allow time for a more
mature consideration than has yet been given, or can be
given in the present excited state of the public mind, to
the various questions connected with the organisation of a
Government for India, and would enable the most comp&
tent minas in the nation calmly to examine whether any
new arrangement can be devised for the Home Govern-
ment of India uniting a greater number of the conditions of
good administration than the present, and if so, which
among the numerous schemes which have been or may be
proposed possesses those requisites in the greatest degree.
"That your petitioners have always willingly acquiesced
in any change which, after discussion by Parliament, were
deemed conducive to the general welfare, although such
changes may have involved important sacrifices to them-
selves. They would refer to their partial relinquishment of
trade in 1813; to its tosal abandonment, and the placing of
their commercial charter in abeyance in 1833; to the trans-
fer to India of commercial assets, amounting to 15,8.58,000/.,
a sum greatly-exceeding that ultimately repayable to them
in respect of their capital, independent of territorial rights
and claims; and to their concurrence, in 1351, in the
measure by which the Court of Direstors was reconstruct-
ed, and reduced to its present number. In the same spirit,
your petitioners would most gladly co-operate with her
Majesty's Government in correcting any defects which may
be considered to exist in the details of the present system ;
and they would be prepared, without a murmur, to relin-
quish their trust altogether if a better system for the con-
trol of the Government of India can be devised. Bat as
they believe that, in the construction of such a system,
there are conditions which cannot, without the most dan-
gerous consequences, be departed from, your petitioners
respectfully and deferentially submit to the judgment
of your honourable house their view of those condi-
tions, in the hope that, if your honourable house should
see reason to agree in that view, you will withhold your
legislative sanction from any arrangement of the Govern-
ment of India which does not fulfil the conditions in ques-
tion in at least an equal degree with the present.
"That your petitioners may venture to assume that it
will not be proposed to vest the home portion of the admi-
nistration of India in a Minister of the Crown, without the
adjunct of a Council composed of statesmen experienced in
Indian affairs. Her Majesty's Ministers cannot but be
aware that the knowledge necessary for governing a foreig n
country, and in particular a country like India, requires as
much special study as any other profession, and cannot
poslibly be possessed by any one who has not devoted a
considerable portion of his life to the acquisition of it.
" That in constituting a body of experienced advisers to
be associated with the Indian Minister, your petitioners
consider it indispensable to bear in mind that this body
should not only be qualified to advise the Minister, but
also, by its advice, to exercise, to a certain degree, a moral
check. It cannot be expected that the Minister, as a gene-
ral rule, should himself know India ; while lie will be ex-
posed to perpetual solicitations from individuals and bodies
either entirely ignorant of that country, or knowing only
enough of it to impose on those who know still less than
themselves, and having very frequently objects in view other
than the interests or good government of India. The influ-
ences likely to be brought to bear on hi m through the organs
of popular opinion will, in the majority of cases, be equally
misleading. The public opinion of England, itself neces-
sarily unacquainted with Indian affairs, can only follow the
promptings of those who take most p tins to influence it ;
and these will generally be such as have some private in-
terest to serve. It is, therefore, your petitioners submit, of
the utmost importance that any council which may form a
part of the Home Government of India should derive a suffi-
cient weight from its constitution, and from the relation it
occupies to the Minister, to be a substantial barrier against
those inroads of self-interest and ignorance in this country
from which theGovernmentof India has hitherto been com-
paratively free, but against which it would be too much to
expect that Parliament should of itself afford a sufficient
protection.
" That your petitioners cannot well conceive a worse
form of government for India than a Minister with a coup-
cif whom he should be at liberty to consult or not at his
pleasure, or whose advice he should be able to disregard
without giving his reasons in writing, and in a manner
likely to carry conviction. Such an arrangement, your
petitioners submit, would be really liable to the objections,
in their opinion, erroneously urged against the present
system. Your petitioners respectfully represent that any
body of persona associated with the Minister, who is not a
check, will be a screen. Unless the council is so constituted
as to be personally independent of the Minister; unless it
feels itself responsible for recording an opinion on every
Indian subject, and pressing that opinion on the Minister,
whether it is agreeable to him or not; and unless the
Minister, when he overrules their opinion, is bound to re-
cord his reasons, their existence will only serve to weaken
his responsibility, and to give the colourable sanction of
prudence and experience to measures in the framing of
which those qualities have had no share.
" That it would be vain to expect that a new council
could have as much moral influence, and power of asserting
its opinion with effect, as the Court of Directors. A new
body can no more succeed to the feelings and authority
which their antiquity and their historical antecedents give
to the East India Company, than a Legislature, under a
new name, sitting in Westminster, would have the moral
ascendancy of the Houses of Lords and Commons. One of
the most important elements of usefulness 11. thus be
necessarily wanting in any newly-constituted n coun-
cil, as compared with the present. "
That your petitioners find it difficult to conceive that
the same independence, in judgment and act, which
cha-
racterises the Court of Directors, will be found in any
council all of whose members are nominated by the Crown.
Owing their nomination to the same authority, many of
them probably to the same individual Minister whom they
are appointed to cheek, and looking to him alone for their
reappointment, their desire of recommending themselves
to him, and their unwillingness to risk his displeasure by
any his serious resistance to wishes, will be motives too
strong
not to be in danger of exercising a powerful and in-
jurious -
influence over their conduct.
tioners aware of any mode in whichth Nor are your yeti
at injurious influence
could be guarded against,
like those of the judges,
by teenferring the ap-
pointments,haviour; which, by rendering it impossible
during good be-
haviour; to correct an
error once committed, would be seriouslyl objectionable.
" That your petitioners are
i perceiveequtailreylyuannamblientaotecibythe
how, if the controlling body ! en
Minister, that happy independence of parliamentary and
party influence
which has hitherto
thhiethaeprtpooidniteratienngtubietsoheexicilpiteutchat
tee
idoa
ministration of India, a
of trust and importance in that Country, can
to
continue. Your petitioners believe that in no government
known to history have appointments to offices, and especi-
ally to high offices, been ao rarely bestowed on any other
considerations than those of personal fitness. This charac-
teristic, but for which in all probability India would long
since have been lost to this country, is, your petitioners,

P RIOR 4U, STAMPED s'l

conceive, entirely owing to the circumstance that the dis-
pensers of patronage have been persons unconnected with
,party, and under no necessity of conciliating parliamentary
support; that consequenty the appointments to offices in
ju
dgment
of have been, as a rule, loft to the unbiassed
of the local authorities ; while the nominations to the civil
and military services have been generally bestowed on the
middle classes, irrespective of politic:l considerations, and
in a large proportion on the relatives of persons who had
distinguished themselves by their services in India.
" That your petitioners therefore think it essential that
at least a majority of the council which assists the Minister
for India with its advice, should hold their seats indepen-
dently of its appointment.
" That it is, in the opinion of your petitioners, no less
necessary that the order of the transaction of busiuese
should be such as to make the particiea.tion of the council
in the administration of India a substantial one. That to
this end it is in the opinion of your petitioners, indispen-
sable that the despatches to India should not be prepared
by the Minister and laid before the council, but should be
prepared by the council and submitted to the Minister.
This would be in accordance with the natural and °twines
pr:umple, that persons, chosen for their knowledge of a
ee loeet, should suggest the mode of dealing with it, instead
of merely giving their opinion on sugeestions coming from
elsee here. This is also the only mode in which the mem-
here of the council can feel themselves sufficiently impel--
tent, or sufficiently responsible, to secure their applying
their minds to the subjects before them. It is almost
unnecessary for your petitioners to observe, that the mind
is called into far more vigorous action by being required
to propose, than by merely being called on to assent. The
Minister has necessarily the ultimate decision. If be his
also the initiative, he has all the powers which are of any
practical moment. A body whose only recognised function
was to find fault would speedily let that function fall into
desuetude. They would fel that their co-operation in
conducting the Government of India was not really desired ;
that they were only felt as a clog on the wheels of business.
Their criticism on what had been decided, without tEeir
being collectively consulted, would be felt as importunate,
as a mere delay and impediment ; and their office would
probably be seldom sought, but by those who were willing
to allow its most important duties to become nominal.
"That, with the duty of preparing the despatches to
India, would naturally be combined the nomination and
control of the home establishments. This your petitioners
consider absolutely essential to the utility of the council.
If the officers through whom they work are in direct de-
pendence,upon an authority higher than theirs, all matters
of importance will in reality be settled between the '
Minister and the subordinates, passing over the council
altogether.

"That a turd consideration to which your petitioners
attach great importance is, that the number of the council
should not be too restricted. India is so wide a field that
a practical acquaintance with every part of its affairs can-
not be foun I combine a in any small number of individuals.
The council ought to contain men of general experience
end knowledge of the world, also men specially qualified
by financial and revenueexperieno u, byjudicial experience,
diplomatic experience, military experience ; it ought to
contain persons conversant with the varied social relations
and varied institutions of Bengal, Madras, Bombay, the
North-Western Provinces, the Punj aub, and the Native
States. Even the present C -urt of Directors, reduced as it
is in numbers by the Act of 1853, does not contain all the
varieties of knowledge and experience desirable in such a
body; neither, your petitioners submit, would it be safe to
limit the number to that which would be strictly sufficient
supposing all the appointments to be the best possible. A
certain margin should be allowed for failures, which, even
with the most conscientious selection, will sometimes
occur. Your petitioners, moreover, cannot overlook the
possibility that, if the nomination takes place by Ministers
at the head of a political party, it will not always be =do
with exclusive reference to personal qualifications ; and it
is indispena able to provide that such errors or faults in the
nomirwing authority, so long as they are only occasional,
shall not seriously impair the efficiency of the body.
" That while these consideration:: plead strongly for a
bo ly not less numerous than the present, even if only re-
garded as advisers of the Ministry ; that their office, as a
check on the Minister, forms, your petitioners submit, a
❑o less forcible objection to any sousiderable reduction of
the present number. A body of 6or 8 will not be equal
to one of 1 in that feeling of independent self-reliance
which is necessary to induce a public body to press its
opinion on a Minister to whom that opinion is unaccept-
able. However unobjectioxably in other respects so small
a body may be constituted, reluctance to give offence will
be likely, unless in extreme cases, to be a stronger habitual
inducement in their minds than the desire to stand up for
their convictions.
" That if, in tbeopinion of your honourable house, a body
can be constituted which unites the above enumerated re-
quisites of good government, in a greater degree than the
Court of Dii actors, your petitioner, have only to express
their humble hope that your endeavours for that purpose
may be succesaful. But if, in enumerating the conditions
of a good system of Home Government for India, your
petitioners have, in fact, enumerated the qualities possessed
by the present system, tkeu your petitioners pray that your
honourable house will continue the existing powers of the
Court of Directors.

" That your petitioners are aware that the present
Home Government of India is reproached with being a
double goveroment, and that any arrangement by which
an independent check is provided to the discretion of the
Minister, will be liable to a similar reproach. But they
conceive that this accusation originates in an entire mis-
conception of the functions devolving on the Home Govern-
inent of India, and in the application to it of the principles
applicable to purely executive departments. The Executive
Government of India is, and must be, seated in India itself.
The Court of Directors is not so much an executive as a
deliberative body. Its principal function, and that of the
Home Government generally, is not to direct the details of
administration, but to scrutinise and revise the past acts
of the Indian Government—to lay down principles and
issue general instructions for their future guidance—and
to give or refuse sanction to great political measures, which
are referred home for approval. Those duties are more
analogue to tholfunctions of Parliament, than to those of an
executive board ; and it might almost as well be said that
Parliament, as that the Government of India, should be
constituted on the principles applicable to executive
boards. It is considered an excellence, not a defect, in the
constitution of Parliament, to be not merely a double
but a triple Government. An executive authority, your
petitioners submit, may often with advantage be single,
because promptitude is its first requisite. But the func-
tion of passing a deliberate opinion on past measures,
mil laying down principles of future policy, is a
business which, in the estimation of your petitioners
admits of and requires the concurrence of more judg-
ments than one. It is no defect in such a body to be
double, and no excellence to be single, especially when it
can only be made so by cutting off that branch of it which,
by previous training, is always the best prepared—and
often the only one which is prepared at all—for its peculiar
ditty.
" That your petitioners have heard it asserted that, in ,
consequence of what is called the double government, the
Indian authorities are less responsible to Parliament and
the nation than other departments of the Government of
the empire, since it is impossible to know on which of the
two branches of the Home Government the responsibility
ought to rest. Your petitioners fearlessly affirm that this
impression is not only groundless, but the very reverse of
the truth. The Home Government of India is not less
but more responsible than any other branch of the admi-
nistration of the State ; inasmuch as the Pre:4 lent of the
Board of Commissioners, who is the Minister for India, is
as completely responsible as any other of her Majesty's
Ministers, and, in addition, his advisers also are respon-
sible. It is always certain, in the case of India, that the
President of the Board of Commissioners must have either
commanded or sanctioned all that has been lone. No more
than this, your petitioners would submit, can be known
in the case of the head of any departmeLt of her Majesty's
Government. For it is not, nor can it rationally be sup-
posed, that any Minister of the Crown is without trusted
advisers ; and the Minister for India must, for obvious
reasons, be more dependent than any other of her Ma-
-1 jesty's Ministers, upon the advice of persons whose lives
have been devoted to the subject on which their advice has
been given. But in the case of Julia, such advises are as-
gigged to him by the constitution of the Government, and
they are as much responsible for what they advise, as he
for what ho ordains; while, in other departments, the
Minister's only official advisers are the subordinates iu his
office, men often of great skill and experience, but not in
the public eye, often unknown to the public even by name ;
official reserve precludes the possibility of ascertaining
what advice they give, and they are responsible only to the
Minister himself. By what application of terms this can
be cane,: responsible Government, and the joint Govern-
ment of your petitioners and the India Board an irre-
sponsible Government, your petitioners think it unneces-
sary to ask.
"That, without knowing the plan on which her Majesty's
Ministers contemplate the transfer to the Crown of the ser-
vants of the company, your petitioners find themselves un-
able to approach the delicate question of the Indian army,
further than to point out that the high military qualities
of the officers of that army have unquestionably sprung, in
a great degree, from its being a principal and substantive
army, holding her Majesty's commissions, and enjoying
equal rank with her Majesty's officers, and your petitioners
would earnestly deprecate any change in that position.
" That your petitioners, having regard to all these con-
siderations, humbly pray your honourable house that you
will not give your sanction to any change in the constitu-
tion
of the Indian Government during the continuance of
the present unhappy disturbances, nor without a
claim,o notn
full pre-
vious inquiry into the operation of the present
inquiry may
m.
ra i
And your petitioners further pray, that this
extend to every department of Indian administration.
Such an inquiry your petitioners respectfully
only as a matter of justice to themselves, but because
when, for the first time in this century, the thoughts of
every public man in the country are fixed on India, an in.
quiry would be more thorough, and its results would carry
much more instruction to the mind of Parliaments and of
the country than at any preceding period."
Mr. JONRE3 resumed the debate, observing that many
of his arguments and opinions had been anticipated by
the petition just read. (Rear,hear.)
thlat mis-
apprehensionthe very generally prevailed
dividends of the East India proprietors were in-
creased by conquests, but were they to double
the revenue of that country the proprietors would not
get a farthing of increase of dividen l and East India
proprietors had no interest in the aggrandisement of
India. (Rear, bear.) He denied that the eompany had
disopuraged
Christianity in India, and referred to many
facts and circumstances in support of his statement. The
obstruction to religion had not sprung from the lathes of
the East India Company, but from the bloody unwarrant-
able and wholesale murder of the people in the unjust
aggression of territory made at the instance of the Board
of Control. (Hear.) It had been urged against the
Company that the people of India were reduced to such
a state of poverty, that it was a crime against humanity
that the present system should continue ; and he
denied the statement that had been put forth, that
there were eighteen millions of people living in
Madras at the rate of ld. per head per day. That
India was in an Advancing position was shown by the