The Sun.
London, England, 1858-05-04 00:00:00

LONDON,

in council and those of a Minister having no council; but,
although he drew such a distinction with great ingenuity,
at one moment, I think he forgot it the. next. He con-
tends that power is to be exercised by a Minister in coun-
cil, but only with the approval of the council. If, how
ever, you say that a Minister is only to exercise power with
the approval of his council, you mean there is to be a con-
joint authority—a division of power—between such Mini-
ster and the council ; and, surely it is obvious, that if you
do divide powers between the Minister and the council you
are doing away with one of the main principles upon which
we are endeavouring to legislate—namely, that of securing
the undivided responsibility of a Minister. There seems to
be—if T may venture to say so—some confusion in the
minds of many persons as to what it is they really desire.
I often hear persons arguing against the danger of giving
authority to a Minister, and at the same time desiring that
he should be made responsible. Now, I say you cannot
separate the one from the other. If you intend to impose
responsibility you must give power. Constitute a council
having conjoint power with the Minister, and if any act of
that Minister is impugned in Parliament, what will be his
answer? He will say, "You have bound me to act
with the approval of certain persons. That approval,
therefore, I must necessarily obtain, and I could
only obtain it by following the line of policy I have
adopted in this (instance ; and you who have im-
posed upon me this restriction have no right to reproach
me with its natural and inevitable consequence."
It may be the object of the hon. and learned member to
establish such a state of things, but that result was not
contemplated by the Government, nor is it, I apprehend,
contemplated by the house. We want individual Ministe-
rial responsibility. (Hear.) It will bo asked, no doubt,
if that is our object, why have a council at all? Ittnow
that question has been put, and I refer to it for the pur-
pose of showing that it admits of an answer. I think my
right hon. friend described very truly the object and inten-
tions of the Government in proposing a council, when he
stated that the council is intended to exercise a moral con-
trol—that is to say, the Minister is to be surrounded by
those who can bring long experience to bear on the ques-
tions submitted to their consideration, who can give the
Minister the best advice, and supply him with the beat
materials on which to form his judgment; but having the
benefit of that advice and experience, he is bound to act on
his own single experience. (Hear ) There is one other ob-
jection to the proposed amendment. I think that, to some
extent, it neutralises the effect of the course we are now
taking in proceeding by way of resolution. The object of
proceeding by way of resolution is that we should go on
step by step, advancing one step at a time. Now, in the
amendment of the hon. and learned gentleman we are
made to take two seeps at a time. The amendment de-
clares, first, that there shall be a Minister for Indian
Affairs ; and, secondly, that that Minister shall stand in
a particular relation to his council. These are separate
propositions, both open to contr hersy and debate. Many
persons, those especially who support the administration
of Indiaby the Company, object to conferring on a Minis-
ter such a power as is contemplated by the resolutions.
Other persons, willing to give him such a power, are un-
willing that he should share it with a council. These, then,
are separate questions, to be discussed apirt, and it seems
like anticipating the judgment of the committee on a fu-
tnie resolution if on the present occasion we adopt the
words proposed by the hon. and learned gentleman. On
these grounds I hope the committee will not agree to the
amendment.
Mr. MANGLES,- for the first time since he had the
honour of a seat in that house in conjunction with the hon.
member for the Tower Hamlets, found himself in accord
with that honourable gentleman. (Laughter.) He was sorry
to hear the argumentum ad invidium raised by the noble
lord (Lord Stanley), besides which the noble lord quite
misunderstood the proposal before them, what the amend-
ment contended for was that before acting the minister
should be compelled to sit in council and hear all recom-
mendations of his councillors That was precisely the po-
sition of the Governor-General of India at that moment,
and no one pretended that he was not practically absolute.
Unless they compelled the minister to listen to the opinions
of the council, the council would be a mere sham, without
any substantial power. And what possible protection had
they otherwise against the rash acts of a minister i He
was not opposed to absolute power being vested in the
minister; all he contended for was that he ought to be
obliged to hear what his council had to say.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that
if the committee should be allured from the straight path
'before them the result would be that the progress of pub-
lic business would be very much impeded. He confessed
that he entirely shared in the interpretation put upon the
amendment by the noble lord—namely, that there should
be a joint power between the Minister and the Council.
[Hr. A:yrton intimated dissent.] But he wished to impress
on the committee that the resolutions were drawn with the
intention of advancing, if possible, step by step, to a
general settlement of the question. Having first of all
asserted that the government of India should be trans-
ferred from the Company to the Crown, the next prinoiple
laid down was that the authority of the Government
should be exercised by a responsible Minister. He thought
it unnecessary and unwise to introduce at this stage the
question whether there should be a Council or not. If
the committee subsequently decided on the formation of a
Council it would then be open for the committee to decide
whether the functions of the Council should be exercised
in the manner approved of by the hon. director, and as tie
holt. and learned gentleman now intimated he proposed.
What the committee had now to do was to determine
whether there should be a Minister for India under the
name of a Secretary of State, and when they had arrived
at a conclusion on that head, it would be for them to
decide whether there should be a council, and, if so, how
it should be composed, and how its functions should be
exercised. (Hear, hear.) There were many gentlemen of
opinion that there ought to be a Minister in this country
solely responsible for the Government of India, whe were
not in favour of a council. Again, many who were in
favour of a council were against the Minister having an
undivided authority. The hon. and learned gentleman
(Mr. Ayrton) w a 3in neither category: He (the Chancellor
of the axchequer) for those reasons hoped the committee
would not sanction the amendment even if they approved
it. It might be a just and proper amendment in the right
place, and in the right season, but he maintained that
this was not the right occasion for its introduction.
Mr. V. SMITH entirely agreed with the noble lord op-
posite as to the interpretation to be put upon the amend-
ment of the hon. member—namely, that it declared that
in no case was the new minister to act independently of
his council. Now he thought that all those who weresin
favour of concentrating responsibility in the ministerrwere
bound to vote against uch a proposal. At the same time
he desired to guard himself against the notion that he was
voting against the amendment, supporting the proposal
that the new minister was to occupy the position of a Sec-
retary of State.
Sir H. VERNEY was one of those who held it to be es-
sential for the' maintenance of England's dominion in India,
that there should be an intermediate power between the
Crown and the people of India. He denied that the house
of Commons would or could be any check upon abuses of
Government practised in India.
Mr. ROEBUCK said the had been told more than once
that they must proceed step by step with theseresolutions.
He thought, however, that if anything they had taken a
step backwards that Eevening, for he blieved that it was
determined on Friday night by a large majority that the
company was no longer to govern India ?' Well, then, the
question which they had now to discuss was, how was the
Crown to govern India. Ho differed, however, entirely
from the noble lord and right hon. gentleman opposite,
that they were debarred from discussing the duties and
nature of the council upon that occasion. They were dis-
cussing the establishment of a Government in England for
India similar to that -of 1783. The real Government of
England was in that house, which was becoming more and
more the representation of the people of England, and
the practical conclusion he drew from it was, for them
to have a Secretary of State for the Government of
India on his own responsibility, and without the aid of
(showing the power and responsibility that would result
from) a council. He wanted a Secretary of State for India
who should be responsible, and alone responsible, for the
government of India. In speaking of the phantom of " old
Indians," he considered the worst council they could have
for the government of India was a council of "old Indians,
whose knowledge and experience of India _would b 3 con-
fined to the particular spot in which they had located, and
the effect would be that the Secretary of State would be
able to impose upon the people on the authority of the
board of " old Indians." He was an advocate for undi-
vided responsibility, as the only means by which India
could be pro-erly governed.
Sir P. WILLOUGHBY asked if it was safe to transfer
to a Secretary of State, without control, the governnfent
of India ? It would give him a despotic power over
the army, the civil power, and 30 millions of reve-
nue, which it was not desirable any man should possess
for the benefit of that country. It was intended that the
Secretary of State should be paramount, but in difficult
cases it was desirable he should take the advice of a
council; and however much honourable members might
sneer at " old Indians," it was only from those who had
had experience in India knowledge of India could be ob-
tained. It was of the utmost importance there should be
a council of state to advise him in directing his important
duties, and share the responsibility with him. It was to
the interest of the house and the country to insist on the
appointment of a council. He objected to one individual
being invested with so much power as a Secretary of State
for India would be without the control and assistance of a
council.

Lord PALMERSTON thougbt the committee were die'
cussing two questions which ought to be made the subject
of separate resolutions. By assenting to the resolution
which had been put from the chair, they would neither
affirm nor deny the propriety of appointing a council, but
would leave themselves at liberty to deal with that ques-
tion whenever it came regularly before them. Those who
were of opinion that ti e government of India should be
transferred from the Company to the Crown could not rea-
sonably or consistently object to the present resolution,
because the Crown must act through a responsible Minister
and he agreed with the hon. and learned member for Shef-
field, that what Parliament and the country had in view
was to make the Minister of the Crown answerable for the
administration of India at home ; but that purpose would
be defeated if the Minister were surrounded by a council
who should have the power of controlling bim. To consti-
tute such a council would ba to re-establish the "double
government" in a worse form than before. It was pre-
mature, however, to discuss whether or not there should
be a council, and what its functions should be. There
was a subsequent resolution to the effect that the Minister
should be assisted by a council, and the committee would
do well to postpone until that resolution was put the ques-
tion
of what would be the composition of the council,
whether it should be nominated or elected, and in what
degree,it should be an advising body. The present resolu-
tion gave him the title of Secretary of State, while the bill
of the late Government called him President in Council.
That was a matter which might be discussed at a future
stage, but he trusted the committee would not agree to the
amendment, which was inconsistent with the principle of
transferring the government of India to the Crown. (Hear,
hear.)
Lord J. RUSSELL said the question raised by the pre-
sent resolution was not whether there should be a council,
but whether the Minister for India, like the Governor-
General, should never act without consulting his council.
It was necessary the committee should eon-ider how the
council in India arose. At one time the Governor-General
waged wars and conclu3ed treaties of peace which were be-
lieved in England to be inconsistent with justice and ad-
verse to the policy which the country ought to pursue. In
order to control the Governor-General, acting as he did at
a great distance, the plan was hit upon of sending' out three
or four persons to form his council, and, without depriving
him of the absolute power of carrying his own views
into effect, Parliament resolved that if he differed from
his council, the members should be at liberty to
record in writing the reasons of their dissent. That
contrivance, though perhaps tbo best that could be
adopted, was not very successful, for it led during many
years to dissensions in the council, at one time Warren
Hastings, and at another Mr. Francis having a majority.
But, whether the contrivance was good or bad, the case of
the Governor-General bore no analogy to that now under
consideration, for he presumed they did not want the
Minister for India to be obliged on every occasion to go to