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

THE SUN, LONDON, _ SATURDAY EVENING, MAY 1, 1858.

the matter, in deference to the deliberate judgment of
this house. (Hear, hear.) Let the house new consider
what the effects would probably be of leaving India in
its present disturbed state under a system of Govern-
ment condemned not only by one, but by two administra-
tions here, and not only by those administrations, but
by an immense majority of the House of Commons, as
well as by public opinion generally. Let us but consider
how weakened in its moral strength is the present Indian
government by all these circumstances, and how hampered
it must be by its own doubt as to the duration of its
authority. lam persuaded, sir, that the change from
the existing Indian government to the direct authority o
the Queen would have a salutary effect on the population,f
as well as upon the native mind of India
.itself. The
natives, in my opinion, would look with infinitely reatethe
r
respect and attachment to the direct governmengt of
Queen than they can ever be persuaded to look
.to the
government of a company of merchants, however indivi-
dually respectable they may be. (Hear.) And as to the
effect upon the Indian array,
I.will venture to say that
there is not an officer or a man in that army who would
not feel prouder in being told that he was transferred
to the immediate service of the Queen than if he were to
continue in that of the East India Company. (Hear.)
Well, if that be the case, if the local army feel them-
selves in a po.ition of inferiority as compared with that
of the Queen's own army, surely that fact of itself is a
sufficient justification for the proposed legislation.
(Hear.) But there is another consideration, which I
think should also have weight with us. The mutiny, hap-
pily, is now nearly suppressed. Those acts of severity,
and those measures incidental to the present state of
things, may happily soon be terminated. The period is
fast approaching when it will be the duty as well as the
interest of all governments that a system of clemency
instead of punishment should be pursued ; and that a
distinction should be made between those who have

timely surrendered to our authority, and the actual mu
tineers who have been waging war against us to the last.
I say, then, that a change of system will come with
much more grace and effect when it comes in the shape
of a direct act of the Sovereign of this country, than
from the present authorities in India. It would, I think,
be a most fortunate coincidence, if at the same time this
system of indulgence was commenced it was also an-
nounced that the Government at home had been now
changed, that the people of India are now placed under
the benevolent sway of the Sovereign of England, and
it is to that authority that they are henceforth to give
their allegiance. (Hear, hear.) Concurring entirely,
then, in the opinion expressed, I believe the House of
Commons is prepared to come to an early division upon
this question. I have myself no doubt of the result of
that division ; I am sure that her Majesty's Government
share in the opinion I have expressed upon the motion
of the noble loci, and I am prepared to resist the motion
of my noble heeled and go at once into committee for the
consideration of the resolutions. (Hear, hear.)
Lord STANLEY—Sir, I think I am bound on the
part of her Majesty's Government to acknowledge, in
the first instance, the perfect fairness and entire can-
dour in which this subject has been treated by the noble
lord who has made the motion now under consideration.
It must be evident to every one who heard him—what-
ever his own individual opinion may be on the question
—that he has not sought to bias their minds by an ap-
peal to class influences, to give the subject a political
character, nor to view it as one upon which a party dis-
cussion might be taken ; but rather as a question involv-
ing the greatest and most momentous considerations that
could well be considered by a Brieish House of Com.
mone. But when I turn to the arguments of the noble
lord, I confess I am utterly unable to appreciate their
value. The arguments of the right hoc. gentleman the
member for Portsmouth Ido indeed understand. The
noble lord has told us, not only in the tone and spirit of
his speech, but in express words, that this house is un-
fit to legislate upon this subject. He has said something
about the difficulty of substituting for an absolute go-
vernment like that of India a constitutional government
like that of England. There may be difficulties on our
part such as he describes, but surely those are not
difficulties which will be less in 1859 than they are in
1858. (Hear, hear.) If it be objectionable to legislate
now upon India, it will be equally so then. We have
been told of the great difficulties and perplexities that are
involved in any attempt to change the government of
India. Sir, no man who has considered this question
can, I think, deny that it is one of the most difficult and
most complicated that has ever been brought before
parliament. But I ask, are those difficulties and com-
plications such as will be gradually reduced by time / Is
the India question one that will settle itself alone, or is
it not rather one which will create an increase of per-
plexities and difficulties the longer it remains untouched !
(Hear, hear.) We are told that there are grave differ-
ences of opinion in this house upon the particular mea-
sure which we should adopt in regard to the future
government of India ; and that those differences of
opinion establish a reason for not legislating at all upon
the question. Well, sir, I can only say that if legisla-
tion is to be postponed until there is something
like a unanimity of opinion amongst the leaders of
the various parties in this house, I think that we
shall have to wait a long time before such a
period has arrived. There was no such unanimity Isere
and agreement of opinion in the great debates of 1783,
when the then Board of Control was first instituted,land
the doble government of India was first established. The
two great parliamentary leaders at that time were at
issue upon the question. There was no unanimity of
opinion in 1833, and certainly there was no great agree-
ment of opinion in the discussions which took place on
this subject five years ago—discussions which occupied
this house more than, I believe, 20 nights. (Hear.) Wel',
then, we are told that this is a question with which a
strong Government only can deal. Now that I think is
rather a delicate matter for any one to touch upon. It
is difficult, in my opinion, to say what constitutes a
strong Government. An administration may be even
strong, in regard to its general policy, and yet may not
be able to influence the House of Commons to an equal
extent in regard to Indian legislation as to English ques-
tions generally ; and for this reason the Government that
is depending fur its strength on the support of political
parties, can only expect that support when its mea-
sures are in accordance with the principles upon which
those political parties are formed. But with regard to
Indian administration the case is somewhat different.
We have seen great differences of opinion expressed
in the debates that occurred two years ago on this sub-
ject. We have seen wide differences of opinion expressed
amongst those who, agreeing generally upon English
legislation, are utterly at variance upon the subject of
Indian politics. Itb nk, therefore, as a matter of argu-
ment, we are not justified in entertaining any such ob-
jection in reference to this important subject—namely,
that no Government who cannot command a decided
majority in this house has a right to deal with the Indian
question. (Hear, hear.) Well, then, we are told that
public opinion has not sufficiently declared itself. Now
what is meant by public opinion declaring itself upon
'retire l We know upon questions of domestic policy
that a very large number of persons out of doors gene-
rally take a warm interest, and that this house wisely
follows, instead of leads, the general opinions. But
we must recollect that this Indian question does
not affect personally a very large number of persons out
of doors. There has not been heretofore, nor is there
likely to be hereafter, a strong pressure of public opi-
nion upon any Government on this subject. There is no
doubt at present a very wide and great interest mani-
fested in regard to India, but that interest has been
created by the recent debates in this house and by the
recent occurrences in India. If, however, we are to
judge the future by the past, that interest will be greatly
diminished when those occurrences have passed away.
But the very fact that there is now a greater interest felt
upon Indian subjects than there was two years ago, or
than there is likely to be two years hence, furnishes, in
say opinion, one of the strongest arguments why we
ought not to delay dealing with the question before us.
(Hear, hear.) Ido not think that any one who eat on
the committee of 1853, or who remembers how long
that committee eat—how great was the investigation it
entered into—the vast volumes which had been laid
before that committee for reference—l do not think, I
repeat, that any one who recollects the debates of 1853,
how long they lasted, and how minutely the whole
details of this question were considered, can now seri-
ously urge that we need further inquiry. I may be told,
sir, that many petitions upon this subject have been pre-
sented to the House of Commons to which we are bound
to pay respect, and that some of those petitions pray for
further inquiry before we adopt any particular plan for
government of India. But what, I ask, is the meaning
of this prayer for further inquiry / When those petitions
pray fur further inquiry, they simply mean that the
House ef Commons should examine into the various
propositions that have been laid down to consider the
principles brought forward in those petitions, and so
having considered them to act upon them (Hear.) I
now wish to allude to what I consider to be the most
serious part of the question—l mean, the danger cf un-
settling men's minds, and of creating disturbances in
India. I confess, air, if I were the colleague of the
noble viscount opposite when, at the beginning of the
session, he proposed to introduce a bill upon the future
government of India, the danger of unse:tling men's
minds is an argument which at that time would have
had considerable weight with me. But the case was
altered when that measure was laid before Parliament.
I will venture to remind the house that I was one of
those who supported the noble viscount in the division
which took place on the introduction of his bill. But
at the same time I am willing to admit that those who
took a mere despsnding. view of the matter had fair
grounds for their argument that it was better not to
iulerfere with the Indian adminis'ration until the
rehel-
-lon bad been suppressed. But the very same reason
a h;ch male hon. membe's unwilling to disturb the go-
e nneent of India for fear of disturbing the public mind
ire that country can im /V, I think, be adduced in favour
of immediate legislation, from the fact ef the public mind
beings, wholly unsettled in regard to this question. (Hear.)
S.r, Ido not think that any one in this ouse can re-
tend to know what is the real effect produced the
Native in the
oative mind by the discussions which have token place
in this house. I have heard it contended—and no
doubt the argument is plausible—that it will bo a
great encouragement to those who are in arms against
our sway in India if they learn that the govern-
ment against which they aro contending is deposed by
the authority at home. But I think, sir, it wi 1 have a
still more injurious effect in the minds of the people of
Idiaift
h eoyfthheiasr, not that the power of the compar y
has
been taken away,but
country
thattoatnikaetttehmepat
u nt3ha
tbyyfrtohme
tGo-
vernmenthecoulpany had failed because the company had such
powerful friends at home, they were enabled to resist
successfully such a proceedingf on the part of her Ma-
jteoactyo'isleGidevzetrhnemeeffnetc.
(Bear,)t our say,
siirl, itf. we are seri.usly
may produce
di us c
upon the native mind, we must r,4ll:en t that

danger of the most serious character to produce upon
the native mind an of disunion and di-
visions at ho me upon this subject. (Hear.) This would
be a fair ergo invent Against raising the question at all, but
the question 'laving been once raised, and it being made
known everyvvhere in India that her Majesty's Govern-
ment had introduced a measure to place the power of
governing that- country in the hands of the Crown in-
stead of the co vapany, I think the only safe and wise
course to purse e is to complete the undertaking which
we have begun. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman
said whatever no ay be the merits of the measure itself
for the future go vernment of India, it will induce natives
to look for still g, -eater changes in regard to them, that
they may suppose, we have no sympathy for them, and
hat we mean to govern India henceforward for the ex.

elusive interests -Of England, without paying any regard
to their interests or prejudices. I say, sir, if any such
alarm is entertained by the natives of India, the only way
to allay such a faelinv is to agree on a measure of legis-
lation as speedily as possible, c)nsistently with the due
consideration cf the importance of the subject, and
thereby to show the voundlessness of those apprehen-
sions. Toere is one pin t more to which I wish to allude.
What is the beet time to undertake so large a work of
legislation? There is not at present before the house any
proposal for making any organic reform of a domestic
character. We are still at a comparatively early
period of the session. Four years ago, the right
honourable gentleman th.e then President of Board of
Control introduced his India Bill at a later period of the
session than now. Now, we cannot tell what political
events may occur in the course of the year, which would
make it uncertain that we should have so much time to
give up to the consideration of this question if we delay
it much longer. If her Majesty's Government had con-
sulted their own ease, and desired to save themselves
from the trouble, the difficulty,and embarrassment which
mint necessarily attend discussions of this kind, their
°Woes curse would have been to accept the resolutions
of the noble lotd, and with them the responsibility at-
tending such a proceeding, although they did not ori-
ginally undertake it themselves, but inherited it from
those who had preceded them. (Hear, hear.) S.r, we
did not take that course. We thought we had a duty
to discharge. Toe responsibility was cast upon us, and
from that responsibility it was not, we thought, in our
power to relieve ourselves. Having undertaken it, we
are determined to discharge it, with the favour of this
house, to the beet of our power. (Cheers.)
The house divided, when the numbers were—
For the amendment
Against it
Majority —390
The announcement of the numbers was received with
laughter and cheering.

who had spoken in the highest terms of the East India
Company Burchhart, in his work, said, " that the inha-
bitants of Mecca declared that though the Europeans
danced with their friend's wives, drank wino, and ate
pork, yet their Government was a most just and enlight-
ened one." French travellers, M. de Richmont, and others,
also bore testimony to the feelings of the inhabitants with
regard to the Government of India. Sismondi bore similar
testimony. The hon. gentleman here read several articles
from the works of foreign travellers in Persia, Affghanistan,
and other countries, to show the good feeling which was
entertained towards the Government of India. Amongst
these travellers were Baron Von Hugel, Jacgremont, Fer-
rier, M. Chavalier, and Malmaison. Complaints had been
made against the Company that they sent out youths to
India instead of grown men. Why nothing could be more
advantageous than sending out youths as apprentices to
learn their business there. Them were three great sub-
jects of vilification of the Company. The first was the
administration of justice ; the second, the state of the po-
lice; the third, the deficiency of public works. With re
gard to the subject of administration of justice, lot them
consider the people with whom they had to deal. The at-
tempt to administer justice upon the English system would
be the wildest possible scheme that could be proposed.
The people of India could only be brought by degrees to
govern themselves. A great outcry had been raised against
what was called the " double government." But he ven-
tured to say that nine out of ten members of the House of
Commons were in favour of an independent council.
( Bear.) Did not that mean a double government ? (Hear.)
If India was to be governed well, there must be such an in-
dependent body to stand as a fender between factions in
the House of Commons and the government of India ; and,
if it was the desire of the house that the Government
should be centred in the Crown, he only hoped that such
a council would be really independent. (Hear.)
Sir E. COLEBROOSE opposed the first resolution, on
the ground that before transferring the government of In-
dia into new hands there ought to be a full explanation as
to the nature of the proposed council who were to assist
the Secretary of State, and the character of the assistance
which they would render him. Taking the first resolution
in connection with the second, the powers of the Lew
council would be nil; whereas the powers exercised by the
present Board of Directors were of a substantial character.
Those powers derived significancy, because they were exer-
cised by a permanent body acting under a fluctuating go-
vernment, and on account of the independent principle on
which the directors were elected. There was something
definite in the constitution of the East India Board ; but
there was no security contained in the bill that the new
council would not ultimately become unwieldy. (Hear.)
At all events, let security be taken that the new council
should possess the same powers as those exercised by the
present board of directors. This suggestion he should em-
body in an amendment at the proper time, but now con-
tented himself with moving the rejection of the resolution
under discussion.

Sir C. LEWIS had hoped that the vote which had been
come to by the house, after much discussion, that the
reign of the company should cease, would have been re-
garded as conclusive. ThP,t vote was so taken, and was
accepted by a majority of the members of the present Go-
vernment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated
that he considered the company as no longer a living body,
and that all they could do with respect to it, was to per-
form with decency its obsequies ; and the President of the
Board of Control, when asked whether the bid had been
submitted to the Court of Directors, said that after the vote
come to by the house, he looked upon the directors only as
so many private individuals. It seemed to him that those
who had advocated delay in legislating for India had
father advocated a perpetual renewal of the lease of the
company. Their arguments had commenced by insisting
on the necessity of delay; but they had always resolved
themselves into an eulogium on the merits of the company,
find into a recommendation to maint tin the present system.
This reminded him of a s ling of Lord Bacon, which he
attributed to as ancient wise man. An ancient sage, said
Lord Bacon, on being asked what was the proper time for
marriage, replied, " for a young man not yet, for an old
man not at all." (Hear.) Such seemed to be the advice
of those who advocated delay in legislating for the govern-
ment of India. At present they were told that the disturbed
state of India ought to prevent legislation this session. But
if they delay till another session no doubt they would
then be told that India had had returned to a state of tran-
quillity, and that it would be folly to disturb it. Whatever,
therefore, might be the state of India, the advocates of de-
lay would always find a reason, or rather a pretext, for pro-
longing the power of the company. Regarding the vote of
the house as decisive of the fate of the company, he should
DOW con dder what was the best substitute for it, and not
whether it ought to be maintained. He might remark that,
vet en he spoke on a former occasion of the weakness of the
double go, eminent, he intended to allude not to the execu-
tive in India, but to the defective constitution of the home
government of India. The mutiny had brought forcibly
before the members of the Government the elements of
pr )crastination and perplexity which characterised the
home government of India. It was, therefore, upon the
defects inherent in the hones government of India, and not
upon any want of vigour in the Governor-General, or in
the commissariat placed at his disposal, that he had rested
his arguments in favour of a change. Mr. Burke in a
speech on the India Bill of Mr. Fox, had well characterised
the defects of a system of double government. The speech
was made before the double government was established,
and before the India Bill of Mr. Fox was introduced, but
it accurately described the manner in which such a govern-
ment would work. Mr. Burke said that the scheme of a
council of directors really controlling a Secretary of State
could only be kept in order for a very short time ; that
either the directors would dwindle down to clerks, or the
locretary would, often through design and often through
ne;lect, leave everything to them, and that procrastina-
tion, confusion, and delay would ensue. Such was Mr.
Burke's view of double government. With regard to
the resolution before the house ho hoped the wording of it
would be carefully considered, inasmuch as it was some-
what ambiguous with regard to the sovereignty of India
as declared to be vested in the Crown. The true character
of the home government of India was not a sovereignty
veeted in the company, for they were only a pro-
p i Lary Govetnaient holding their sittings in London,
under the control of Parliament and the Crown. It was

competent to Parliament to sweep away that proprietary
government at any time, and to place the Crown in direct
administrative relation with the territory of India. Our
colonial history afforde 1 numerous examples of proprietary
governments like that of the East India Company. The
majority of the American colonies were n't first placed
under proprietary governments created by charter, similar
to the charter of the company, with this difference, that
the American charters authorised the guarantees to colonise
new settlements iu addition to carrying on trade. These
proprietary governments in America had been put an end
to by the progress of free institutions, and the action of
free settlers effected a change in America similar to that
which they were now about to try to effect in India by the
aid of Parliament. For one, he should never regret that
Mr. Fox's bill of 1783, which would have annulled the
power of the company, had not been passed by the legisla-
ture. He regretted, also, that the power of the company
had not been put an end to when their monopoly was ex-
tinguished. He believed that whatever excellence had
lii been imported into the Government e India had come
from the superintendence of parliamentd of the Board
of Control. It was not due to any excellence in its con-
stitution as a joint-stock company, for all probability,
had it been left to its own management it would in no re-
spect have differed from the direction of ether joint-stock
companies. The time had now arrived for putting an end
to that superintendence, and he trusted the committee
would not hesitate to come to a vote by which the com-
plicated governrefnt of India might be simplified, and by
which the last vestiges of the company's government might
be abolished. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. LINDSAY said that differences of opinion existed
as to the constitution and members of the new council,
their emoluments, and patronage ; but no attention
seemed to have been paid to the ftnocea of India. At
the proper time he should move that %Amu' of the election
of the new eeuncil being left open, the council should con-
sist of the present members of the Court of Directors. By
adopting this course he believed there would be a greater
chance of ensuring legislation this year.
Mr. HORSMAN contended that the proper time for
legislating for India would have been when India was at
peace in 1853; that the inopportune time was the present,
when India was in flames. It was ungenerous to choose
the period of disaster for degrading the company. But
the
rdhwtojol
denounced
itsode
ud,fr
fonahogcneure
and
hs
havedts
taking even broader grounds, he maintained that during
measure which should meet the full extent of the emer-
gency. Our difficulties in India had. shaken that empire
wit eowantaehmuecet
noarh.nuonnratio(ttr
Hifyyv
countrymen
afeirnnt,
couragehfi
wedheheGl
hear.)
orta
h.vyn)eadorr nnaostsrhe-
But
capacity,Gde
weao nennre-i
they sanguine the crisis was over? He was afraid it was
the. natural consequence that those who were slow to be-
lieve the crisis was coming, had run too rapidly to the
conclusion that it was passed.: He feared that our
future tonour in India would be one long continued
crisis, unless we learned to know and to govern
India better than we had done. The Government
of India had been so conducted that it hail excited dis-
trust in the native mind, and from that cause our
Indian army had been in a state of smouldering mutiny
from the mutiny of Velore to the late outbreak. The cha
ratter of Englishmen was not to foresee danger, though
their courage to meet disaster when it came was more re-
markable than its belief in it and to
tditealietfontnnooto,fbht
nlaeht,nbt
ittdes
hebotne: mutiny r, was impossible t o frame a
past heedless, culpable, and criminal conduct towards
Bat if anything could have awakened pthroevicdoeui3itgrayint3ot its
India, it should have boon the impressive warning they
had received. The British Parliament had, however,
assembled. and its benches had been thronged by honour-
able members who had listened to the proposition of the
Minister for the better government of India. But as yet no
information had bon given on a roost material point, viz.,
whether India, under the Government of the C own,
would be able to pay its own expenses. (Hear.) That was
an imporl;aut question, and he urged the committee to
press her Majesty's Government for an answer. (Hear.)
Hitherto this country had not been liable for the deficien-
cies of India, but he was inclined to believe that if they
transferred the government of India to her Majesty's Go-
vernment, the ratepayers of this canary would be liable
for any deficiencies that might hereafter arise. (Hear, and
no, no.) —ll6 Oaeuld like to have the question satisfactorily
answered, because he felt convinced that if they transferred
the government the English Government would be respon-
sible for the Paymentaof the military and judicial esta-
blishments in India as much as they were for those of
England. (Hear.) With the change of government they
would confluence with a deficiency of two millions, with
an increasing
expenditure and an increasing deficiency of
warm), which had been Enticipated this year by a loan
of 8,0)0,00S., with the chance of its being increased next
ye ,T. (1/ ar, hoar.) There wore three sources of revenue
and
India,lainadand a
sthlet' two principal being the revenue derived from
d sixteenth ethi third
millions,
sof opium.
in-
creased, and, the tex on salt fell so heavily on the poor
mate that in Fungal it aineunted to absolute prohibition,
,aud could not neolta übdo was
heavily taxed
accompanied With great misery—(hear, hear, hear)
but when they c til73 to the revenue derivable from
opium, they found it of a most preearione character, and
might be seriously affected eiuher by China legalising its
growth, or America rowingg it in some of her Atlantic pos-
sessions, but in addition to that, the growth of opium
would assume a different character when the Government
was transferred to the Crown, because a State could not
ignore certain moral and leeal objections and obligations
that belonged to the trade 'which a company The result would be that the y weuld commence with de-
ficiency of 2 millions to which must be added 3,1„
the loss of the revenue on opium, making together N
.m!1-
lions, which in the could do.
present circumstances of Th em, if its
revenues failed, that deficiency would have to be made up
by the taxpayer of England. (Hear, and no, no.) The Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer in the early part of the session
shared these apprehensions, and he should like to know if
the right hon. gentleman knew of any mode, should such a
contingency heppen by which England would be relieved
of the lospnsibilite'. His objection to these proceedings in
transferring the government of India to England was, that
by so doing they worCd be taking on themselves obligations
and liabilitie.3 they had not yet fully considered, or with-

out evidence that they had been folly considered. He felt
satisfied it would turn out a mere hhuffie of offices in Lon-
don, leaving India more to chance than he thought it safe
or wise to do. Ho 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. (Hear, bear.)
_ _

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.) He 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 in;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 could 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, hear.)
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, nor
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 were said to exist had long since ceased,
and he contended there was no necessity "now" for mak-
ing the transfer. He denied that the popular voice was in
favour of the proposed change. Out of 327 petitions that
had 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 Lord 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 many questions would have to be
settled, especially with the Nepaulese and Sikhs for the
assistance they had 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, the governin ent
already exercised a great portion, for they appointed a third
of kthe 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. GLA.DaTONE 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 one or two difficulties with
respect to the termsof 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 chap of a bill. He thought the reso-
lution unfortunately drawn, because it appeared to be
based 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 thing 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 expedient
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 tho whole empire might kbo placed under
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-
cised 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
had given free constitutions with that of India in respect
to the superintendence of the executive. In the fernier
sushi/. e ado lly
eni
no
gdti roe cr
et f
us us
refuses ei
trsi nstaenncdtei
en
nc et, all o
a c
ttsh at
f
tcPhaaserelCitarbmoewrenntcw;) and it was 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 much discussion.
But there was another question of considerable difficulty,
in point of strict and dry right, which confronted them at
the outset, and which arose out of the breadth of the
I.nguage in which they had described the extent of the
enterprise they were about to undertake. Lot them con-
sider the position in which an act of parliament founded
on such a resolution would place them in regard to the
creditors of the East India Company. The territorial
debt upon India was 50,000,0001., which had been obtained
in the form of loans to the company in the name of the
Governor General, and the acknowledgment which the
hon. gentleman real sot out that he promised to pay the
amount specified on behalf of the company within the
speified time and the notice named. In the ordinary
course a person about to lend would consider first 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 iritu, 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 British government, the
security not being upon the Consolidated Fund. The
house, however, must not be too sure that the measure
would have no influence on the Consolidated Fund, for
in any case the Indian creditor was justified in complain.-
ine of the violation of his legal rights; they would find
themselves involved iu a contention out of which there
would be 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
tothfiersct resolutionondi now beforetionsuponwhichh the houseehadadv wanceadshviasgmue donseny.
The
g, neral, 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
impolicy of this great change, instead of referring particus
larly to the precise language of the resolution. The right
hon. gentleman who last spoke has, however, very properly
applied his critical powers to the language of this resolu-
tion. He says it is a resolution which has no legal efficacy.
hy, we don't pretend that it has any legal efficacy, It is
a resolution which, if 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 describe in a resolution the policy we recommend.
expression. Nowofthi
s I
nature don't be-
lieve
toThe right hon. 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 adduced some reasons for
use language which is not open to the criticism of a refining
and acute intellect—(hear)—but the question the commit-
tee have to decide is whether, upon the whole, the expres-
do übtiitnigs the accuracy o
possible
expres-
sion wo have used is a proper and practical expression.
i n dealingof
that
it with u w
It is taken from the Act of 1851. (Cheers.) That ant is
entitled an Act for regulating the territories, which,
to use the term of its title, are " under the Govern-
ment of the East India Company." (Hear.) It appeared
to LP, therefore, that we should be acting regularly, and
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.
Wear.) I cannot help thinking, notwithstanding the cri-
ticisms of the right hen. gentleman, that the committee

will be of opinion that, ripen the whole, this is rtriglTt
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 and a half of
the resolution—•` in order that the direct superietendence
of the whole empire may be placed under ono executive
authority." We are only responsible for that expression
inasmuch as we made what I cannot help thinkine, a happy
selection which is, I believe, that of Mr. Pitt.° (Hear.)
I maintain that the expression is perfectly applicable.
The change we are proposing is one from the direct
.treally
perspicuously,ou r
object. and
I
super-
intendence of the East India Company to the direct super-
intendence of the Crown, and the expression is one to
which nobody can abicribe,an ambiguous meaning, and it
agreee on
os the
what
suggestion
distinctlyt
i s h
of the right hon. gentleman, that
either with reference to the expression " the Governor of
therefore with
sufficient
ca nn o t
precision,
the East India Company," which I think is not only popu-
laily, 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 rit,det
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 I am at a
loss clearly to understand what is the strength of the right
lion. gentleman's objection. He would seem to insinuate
that in this trent& r of the government of India from the
East India Company to the Crown the security of
the pubic 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. (Hoar.) Before, it was the trustee who
(Hear.) HisNNlV,aass
oresponsiblewtiol hbiamd;i r w, tllimaser whom that trustee
blefo
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.) I am
not at all surprised Halt the right Lou. gentleman and
thea
other gentleman who addressed us in the coarse of
evening should view with natural apprehension the en i!-
enc,.e which a change like this may
have upon the financest
of the country. It becomes us all to examine withagnredal
caution all the steps we may take in that
respect,
theam quite sure there is no one who can address h
t
commit-
too with snore advantage on this subject than the rig
hoc* gentleman. But I have not heard anything 3 et, either
from the right hon. gentleman or from the member forStroud (Mr. Horsmau), which amounts to more than this
—that the finances of India form a eubject of great impor-
tance and of great anxiety to public me t—(hear)—atul that

in dealing with Indian subjects we should take care that
the liabilities of this country should not be in any way in-
creased by the change we are recommending. (Rear.) That
without any change whatever in the Government, a pos-
sible liability, very much to be deprecated with respect to
Indian finances, may be incurred on the part of the people
of England is no novelty in our debates, and is a truth
which has impressed itself on the minds of those who have

deeply considered this subject. (Hear.) But no course
that we can take with regard to this present project of
legislation can diminish a possible liability which existed
years before. (Hear.) No doubt, as has been said by the
highest authorities in this House, there is an intimate
connection between Indian and English finance, and so
long as India remains the principal dependency of this
country we must all be deeply interested in its finances,
knowing full well what are the possible consequences to
England if those finances are badly administered. What
wish to impress upon the committee, however, is the
true and common-sense view of the question, that the
change now contemplated will not increase the possible
liability in this respect which existed before. (Hear.) As
I mentioned to the committee just now, it is iu the 14th
resolution that this point is really contained, and there
you will find the words " for continuing the charge on the
revenues of India alone" specifically introduced. (Hear.)
I do not know that I have any further observations to
make upon this resolution, because the subject of it has
been so long in our minds, has been treated of late in so
many modes, and in so many papers, that we in this House
have pretty well arrived at a conclusion upon it. There
aro other resolutions as we proceed which no doubt will
lead to very great eontroversy and to protracted discussion.
But it appears to me that, upon the whole, this resolution
expresses the intentions of the committee in language not
justly liable to criticism. That it has no legal efficacy we
are of course all aware. But if it conveys, as I maintain
it does, in clear and precise language what is the intention
of those who propose it, and what I believe is also in the
mind of hon. members, I trust the committee will pass this
resolution, and, I hope. without a division.
Mr. LA.BOUCHERE was willing rather to consider this
resolution in its popular sense, as embodying the opinion
of the House, than to go very closely into its precise mean-
ing, which might be deferred until the whole subject was
considered in the form of a Bill. At the same time, it was
desirable not to assert anything actually contrary to the
fact. Now, he wished in no captious spirit to point out
one part of the resolution which seemed liable to this im-
putation. He referred to the words alluded to by his right
hon. friend (Mr. Gladstone) that the transfer was ex-
pedient, " in order that the direct superintendence of the
whole empire may be placed under one executive
authority." Now, there was one very large part of the
empire which was now completely out of the direct super-
intendence of the Crown at this moment as the territories
of the East India Company—he meant the whole of
that portion of British North America held under a char-
ter by the Hudson's Bay Company. (A. laugh.) If the
words he had quoted were allowed to remain they would
assert that which was actually contrary to the fact, and,
as he believed, they could be omitted without weakening
the force of the resolution, he thought it would be desir-
able to do so.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.—I do not
mean to say it is absolutely necessary that these words
should be in the resolution. There are, probably, a great
many words in these resolutions which might be omitted,
but I think it would be a great pity to strike these out.
The resolution would be more meagre, and would not,
think, express our meaning so well without them. (Hear.)
I am not surprised that the only exception throughout the
wide dominions of her Majesty which can be brought for-
ward in order to prove the inaccuracy of the resolutions is
the case of the Hudson's Bay Company. ('` Hear," and a
laugh.) The fact is that, for the moment, I thought the
Hudson's Bay Company had been put an end to. (" Hear,"
and a laugh.) But that is the only instance which ca❑ be
adduced, and I still therefore retain my opinion that the
expression in the resolution conveys more fully and accu-
rately what I believe to be the intention of the committee
than it would do if altered in the mode suggested.
The resolution was then put and agreed to amid some
cheering.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.—The se.
cond resolution embodies the principle that there should be
one great officer of state responsible for the administrat ion
of India, and specifies his title. It defines generally the
powers and duties of that officer, who we suggest in the
resolution should be called a Secretary of State. The
Committee will, of course, decide whether they think he
should be called a President or a Secretary of State. It is
our opinion that on the whole it would be more convenient,
though it is a matter of no great moment, that the Minis-
ter who is responsible for administering the government of
India in England should be a Secretary of State, and we
have attempted to express the powers and duties which
will devolve upon him in consequence of the change we
propose. The resolution is :
" That for this purpose" (referring to the first resolution)
"it is expedient to provide, that her Majesty, by ono of
her Principal Secretaries of State, shall have and perform
all the powers and duties relating to the government and
revenues of India which are or may be now exercised and
performed by the East India Company, or by the Court of
Directors or Court of Proprietors of the said Company,
either alone or_with the approbation of the Commissioners
for the Affairs of India."

That would concentre all the powers exorcised by the Board
of Control and the Court of Directors in the principal
officer, whose style we have defined as Secretary of State,
and I hope this resolution may pass.
Mr. ROEBUCK suggested the expediency of postponing
further discussion upon the resolution at that hour of the
night (a quarter to 12 o'clock).
Mr. GLADSTONE was of opinion that it was an error
to constitute a new Secretary of State, and contended that
the arrangement proposed upon that point in the bill of
the noble lord the member for Tiverton was preferable
upon all the principles of constitution and analogy to that
embodied in the resolution under the notice of the Com-
mittee. It would under those circumstances, he thought,
be advisable for the present to substitute some such general
words as " responsible advisers" for the words " Principal
Secretaries of State."

The CHANCELLOR of the EXC HEQUE R said he had
no objection to comply with the suggestion of the hon. and
learned member for Sheffield, and should therefore move
that the Chairman report progress. He should postpone
any observaticns which he might wish to make with refer-
ence to the resolution to a future occasion, simply observ-
ing that he could not agree with the right hon. gentleman
the member for the University of Ox ord, so far as the
question of constitution and analogy was concerned.
The CHAIRMAN then reported progress, alai the
house resumed.