The Sun.
London, England, 1858-05-01 00:00:00

out evidence that they had been fully considered. Ho felt
satisfied it would turn out a mere shuffle of offices iu Lon-
don, leaving India more to chance than he thought it safe
or wise to do. He warned the house against precipitately
legislating on this subject, which might be the means of
causing greater danger to arise than existed from the pre-
sent state of things. (Wear, hear.)
Mr. BOWYER said the time was come when thetransfer
of government must be made, and he assented to the reso-
lution before the house from a conviction that the de-
liberations of that house would lead to the constitution of
an independent council for India, possessing the requi-
site knowledge and experience for governing that country.
(Hear, hear.) Ho thought, however, the real meaning of
the resolution was to transfer the government of India to
that house, but he did not think that house was fit to un-
dertake it, and the result would be, if it were left to the
house, that it would be made a vehicle for party struggles
and political strife, notwithstanding expressions to the
contrary iii that house. Everyone who frequented the clubs
of London, or moved in political circles, must feel that it
was at present connected with party strife, and that the
question was looked upon in connection with the possibi-
lity of the continuance of the present Government in office,
and the probability of the return of office of the noble lord
the member for Tiverton. (Hear, hear.) Monarchy was the
system of government most in accordance with the feelings
of the people of the East, and he thought if India were put
under the direct authority of the Crown of England it
would have considerable weight with the native princes.
India coulii not be governed like a colony. It was a con-
quered empire, and as such should be made a portion of
the English empire. (Hear, bear.)
Col. SYKES contended that the wording of the resolu-
tion was a misnomer. Relative to the territories of India,
they were already under the authority of the Crown and
not of the East India Company. He denied that it was ex-
pedient to make the proposed change for the East. Lord
Canning's Administration had not broken down here, nee
had the Government in India failed. The Indian Govern-
ment was able to break the neck of the mutiny by the cap-
ture of Delhi, before the reinforcements from England
could arrive there, since which time there had been such a
succession of successes that one failure had not been known.
The dangers that wore said to exist had long sines ceased,
and he contended there was no necessity "now" for reek-
ing the transfer. He denied that the popular voice was in
favour of the proposed change. Out of 327 petitions that
bad been presented, only four were in favour of a transfer
of the government, the remainder having reference to the
abolition of caste and extension of Christianity. He warned
the Government against the course they were pursuing,
and read an extract from an Indian work, written by a
native, in praise of the East India Company's Govern-
ment in preference to the former governments of that coun-
try. He thought it was dangerous to lead the people of
India to believe that the Home Government intended to
interfere with caste, and extend Christianity there, and in
conclusion he read extracts from the speeches of L )rd Ma-
caulay, the Marquis of Lansdowne, Lord Metcalfe, the Earl
of Ellenborough, Mr. Charles Grant, and Lord J. Russell
in favour of the present system of Government.
Mr. WYLD said he was rather surprised at the argu-
ments advanced against the resolution. The first was that
the Crown took on itself the responsibility of the deficiency
of the revenue. That was the argument of the hon. mem-
ber for Stroud, but such deficiency must be m t somehow.
In any way the people of England would have to be re-
sponsible. No doubt ninny questions would have to he
settled, especially with the Nepaulese and Sikhs for the
assistance they bad rendered in the war, and these could
not be settled by the company as well as they could be by
the Crown. Then with respect to patronage, thegovernr nent
already exercised a great portion, for they appcented a this d
of ithe directors, and exercised half the patronage. No
moment, in his opinion, was more opportune for the in-
terference of the Crown than the present, and the settle-
ment of the question could only be effected thereby.
Mr. GLADSTONE said that the two important divisions
they had had, although having reference to time, yet bore
considerably on that of the transfer of the Indian govern-
ment to the Crown. He should not go into the question of
policy, but he wished to advert to oneor two difficulties with
respect to the terrnsof the resolution, and then to a particular
point which had hitherto attracted little attention, but which
would attract a great deal more before the resolutions
were matured in the shape of a bill. He thought the reso-
lution unfortunately drawn, because it appeared to be
hosed on the fact that the powers of the company were ter-
minable by war; but in order to give it a rational form,
it ought to state that public policy or expediency required
that termination at the present moment. It was no rea-
son, because an inaccurate form of words was adopted in
the act of 1853, that they should adopt an inaccurate form
now. The real fact was, that the territories of the com-
pany were at this moment under the government of the
Crown, and the only Eking that could be alleged was, that
they were under the administration of the Crown. The
distinction was clear, and therefore the language of the
resolution was inaccurate in saying that it was expo Bent
that a transfer of the government to the Crown shall take
place. There was a still more serious objection to the third
clause of the resolution, "in order that the direct supe-
rintendence of the whole empire might bo placed tinder
one executive authority." That assumed that the whole
of the rest of the British empire was under one executive;
but that was not the fact, for, in truth, the Crown exer-
cited a more direct superintendence over the territories of
the East India Company than it did over a large portion of
the rest of the empire. Let the house compare the condi-
tion of Canada and all other places to which Parliament
hal given free constitutions with that of India in respect
to the superintendence of the executive. In the former
case there was really no direct superintendence, all that
the Crown could being to refuse its sanction to acts of
Perliatnent ; and it wee in very rare cases that they exer-
cised any executive authority. If that were so, then un-
doubtedly the recital in the resolution before the com-
mittee was incorrect, the clause was unnecessary and might
be entirely omitted, which would save trench discussion.
But there was another question of considerable difficulty,
in point of strict and dry right, which confronted them at
the outset, and which aro,e out of the breadth of the
I.r.guage in which they bad described the extent of the
enterprise they were about to undertake. Let them con-
sider the position in which an act of parliament founded
on such a resolution would place them in regard to the
dc reebdti
upons ofn
India
aEsaosot,
010n0.,10i phai
cniy, .hThe e
n
obtained
Governor
form
ernorGeonf
the
ee
acknowledgment company n the na
wmhe 1
i;1 the
erlaola,usantdo
hon. gentleman read set out that he promised to pay the
amount specified on behalf of the company within the
gp• ified time and the notice named. In the ordinary
course a person about to lend would consider fi. st of all
the person to whom he lent the money, and next the
security upon which it was lent. What did the resolution
do? It proposed to make important changes in the
security without the consent of the creditor, and in such a
case as that it was not enough to say that no harm was
done to him, but they had no right to stir an inch in the
alteration of his securities until he had been satisfied on the
matter. The proposal distinctly was to change the
borrower. At present the East India Company borrowed
the money; but in future it was proposed that the
borrower should be the B itish government, the
security not being upon the Consoli,rated Fund. The
house, however, must not be too sure that the measure
would have no influence on the Consolidated Fond, for
in any case the Indian creditor was justified in complain-
ing of the violation of his legal rights; they would find
themselves involved in a contention out of which there
would he no other escape than that of giving him a security
on the Consolidated Fund. (Hear, hear.) He wished to
know if it were meant under these resolutions to offer to
the Indian creditor the option of being paid off according
to the conditions upon which he had advanced his money.
The first resolution now before the house was vague and
g stern!, and in itself was of no legal efficacy whatever.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER. --The hon.
gentlemen who have addressed the committee, although
they have evinced a thorough knowledge of the subject,
have rather entered into the general question of the policy or
irnpolicy of this great change, instead of referring particu-
lei ly to the precise language of the resolution. The right
hon. gentleman who last spoke has, however, very properly
alrp
lie
liedhiss:vris ittie is a )al torweseorisatton whichoithel hasngua no leg,!geoftl resolu-
tion.efisllycac.
W hy, we don't pretend that it has any legal efficacy, it is
a resolution which, it carried with the other resolutions of
which I have given notice, will be the basis upon which we
intend to found a measure. (Hear, hear.) It appears to me
that it is a very proper step in the first instance, when this
house is endeavouring to lay down the general principles
upon which we may act, that we should begin by attempt-
ing to descr.be in a resolution the policy we recommend.
The right hen. gentleman complains of the language of this
resolution in so far as we talk of the "Government of the
East India Company," and he has a iduced some reasons for
ldi o3vu
eb intigs tpl
or eaccuracy
s si
b l
possible
in
ti
itnhag wtt
h expression.
subjects
oNow,fthi
sI don't be
naturetc:
language which is not open to the criticism of a refining
ereir,iet..)riesThat
si,
which,i s
andu language which is not open to the criticism ofa refining
and acu
haveto
i intellect--(heir)—but ee leliedcet ( h
is ear)—
whether,but
uponthe
the question
whole, theth
e commit-
tee
expres-
sion we have used is a proper and practical expression.
It
entitled taken
oflB
the 53.(Cthe
to use the term of its title, are " under the Govern-
ment of the East India Company." (Hear.) It appeared
Act
to us, therefore, that we should be acting regularly, and
k c
an fArocmt tflorei. regulatingt
using language which would be intelligible to the house
and to the country, if we availed ourselves of an expres•
sion which was sanctioned by an act of Parliament.
(Hear.) I cannot, help thinking, notwithstanding the cri-
ticisms of the right hon. gentleman, that the committee
will be of opinion that, upon the whole, this is a right
expression. When it is remembered that our proposal is
virtually to repeal the Act of 1853, it seems to me that
the proper course was to use the very language which was
employed in that Act. The right hon. gentleman has also
objected to the expression in the last line anti a half of
the resolution—" in order that the direct superintendence
of the whole empire may be placed under one executive
authority." We are only responsible for that expression
inasmuch as we made what I cannot help thinking a happy
selection which is, I believe, that of Mr. Pitt. (Hear.)
agreeThecino
ntov co
(hyti
distinctlycghaee wso ifieggat ier
suggestion
at
iproposingnoctnirperspicuously,
the
coni
I maintain that the expression is perfectly applicable.
the
s
o
rgewesn:
itdtolhienri
gentleman,
is
st
na
los:nutipeehen:ro•tt-
intendence of the East India Company to the direct super-
nd
which nobody can ab,cribe an ambiguous meaning, and it
precision, what is really our object. I therefore cannot
either with reference to the ex
usdrooiungtshehl3to, fromh
ae
.)
expression " the Governor of
the Ent India Company," which I think is not only popu-
larly, but even technically, correct; or with regard to the
last part of the resolution, which conveys an idea of the
intention which, so far as that resolution is concerned, we
wish to accomplish, any alteration is desirable. The right
hon. gentleman has opened a subject of much greater im-
portance' though it appears to be not so germane to the re-
solution before us as to a subsequent one. But lamat a
loss clearly to understand what is the strength of the right
hon. gentleman's objection. He would seem to insinuate
that in this transfer of the government of India from the
East India Company to the Crown the security of
the public creditors in India is changed. But I maintain
that by the transfer proposed that security has not changed.
The public creditor in India has exactly the same security
as he had before. (Hear.) Before, it was the trustee who
was responsible to him ; now, those for whom flint trustee
was emplejed e, ill be uriectly liable. (Hear.) His secu-
rity wilt be, as before, upon the revenue and the territory
of India ; and that security will not be limited by a trans-
fer of the Government of India from the trustee to the per-
son for whose benefit that trustee acted. (Hear.) lam
not at all surprised that the right hon. gentleman and an-
other gentleman who addressed us in the course of the
evening should view with natural apprehension the influ-
ence which a change like this may have upon the finances
of the country. It becomes us all to examine with great
caution all the steps we may take in that respect, and I
am quite sure there is no one who Call address the commit-
tee with more advantage on this subject than the right
hor7 gentleman. But I have not heard anything yet, either
from the right hon. gentleman or from the member for
Stroud (Mr. foreman), 'which amounts to more than this
—that the finances of India form a subject of great impor-
tance and of greatanxiety to public men—(hear)—and that