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

EVENI NG, FEBRUARY 19, 186$

then ? In the year 1813 the question was debated
between Lord Wellesley and Lord Grenville. Lord Wel-
lesley said that the monopoly ought to be maintained
and Lord Grenville that the monopoly should be destroyed.
But upon one point they agreed that the authority of the
company was not maintainable unless the monopoly of the
trade was maintained with it. " Therefore," said Lord
Wellesley, " as 1 wish to preserve the company, I shall
maintain the monopoly." On the other hand, Lord Gren-
ville said, " As I wish to destroy the monopoly, I will do
away with the company." Both these able men saw the
close connection which existed between the power that exer-
cised privileges, and the exclusive exercise of those privileges.
In the year 1853. another blow was struck at the authority of
the company. They were divided a'together from trade ;
the trade through China was abolished, and their forts and
factories were taken at a fair valuation, and paid for to the
company, who were from that time deprived of their func-
tions. Another important change occurred in 1853, when a
certain number of directors should be nominated by the
Crown. In 1853 another, and a still more important change
took place. Whereas, in the years 1793, 1813, and 1833,
successively the company's charter had been renewed for a
period of twenty years; the Government of Lord Aberdeen
resolved to leave the whole question open for the resolution
of 'alinement by declaring that at any time after a short in-
terval the Crown might give notice to the company t sat its
authority should cease, and that its territory might be taken
under the active administration of the Crown. The hon.
member for Huntingdon therefore is notauthorised in saying
or supposing that there was any kind of deceit, or any
stratagem concealed under the proposition of the Govern-
ment of Lord Aberdeen The general opinion was that it
was not wise to disturb at that time the authority of the
company—that in a few years the Government might be bet-
ter conducted in the hands of the company—that the Govern-
ment of the company should not be permanently maintained,
and that they wished to reserve to Parliament the full power
to deal with the question. Then, sir, I coma to that
which is the great question of all ; are there any reasons at
present why it should be thought desirable that this au-
thority should be taken out of the hands of the company and
brought into the hands of the Crown. I speak upon this
subject with the deepest sense of its importance; with a feel-
ing of the great and inestimable value of our Indian empire,
wish the dread of disturbing its security, and with the wish
to provide everything that can be done for its maintenance.
Still I cannot but see that there was in the constitution of the
East India Company itself, as regards the government of In-
dia, sources of danger which were seen by Lord Metcalf and
Sir John Malcolm, and even I should add a'so by Lord Wil-
liam B ntinek, and by others. I mean with regard to the
sepoy army—the army of Bengal. Now, many hon. gentle-
men have discussed what were the causes of the mutiny, and
the hon. and gallant director (Colonel Sykes) who spoke to-
night, and that it arose from a fear of our interference with
their religious feelings. It may be so. I am not prepared
to dispute it ' • but what I ask is, what was the cause of the
existence of this great Bengal army itself ? If you look
through history, there is nothing s all resembling it. The
great Roman Empire ruled Spain with a single legion—ruled
Africa with a single legion—ruled Egypt with a single legion,
and auxiliaries were attached to these legions. The real
armed body was the groat Roman nation. They never
dreamt of a native army on which to rely in cases of emer-
gency. Look at your colonies. Treating, for a moment, the
East India Company as a private body and apart from its po-
litical influence, consider the position your empire, made from
time to time, cemented with our blood and fortified by the
wisdom of those who have governed this country. Had our
various colonies anything like the Bengal army ? Consider
what would have been the difference, if at one time when the
nationality of Canada was roused and endangered by the acts
of an aspiring and artful demagogue who rose up against Brit-
ish power—consider the effect if a large French army had been
at the beck of that demagogue. As it was, Lord Seaton
had nothing to do but to scatter a force of unarmed pea-
santry, and all the insurrection was at an end. Or consider
the case of Sir Henry Ward, in the lonian Islands. Suppose.
instead of a single regiment, he had had a very largo body of
Zautiotes or natives of Corfu, armed and disciplined, and
drilled in order. What would have been the aspect in Ceylon
if, in 1848, there had been in that island a numerous body of
Cingaleso ? If that be the case, let us look at the position in
which the Bengal army was. Lord Wm. Bentirck said that
most certainly it was the most inefficient army he was ac-
qnainted with. Lord Metcalfe says, " Your situation is pre-
carious' but as long as the army is faithful, you are secure.
If that army is not faithful your empire may be at an end in
a day." Sir J. Malcolm says, " Your position is so precari-
ous that no man can tell at any moment whence danger may
arise." What is the cause of this precarious power This
army, though it wis faithful for a very long period, and an-
parently contented with anything, yet I remember hearing
from officers of high authority that there were four or five
things that a sepoy army
would not do. One was that they
would not endure the least suspicion of any interference with
their religion. Another was that they would not bear the
least want of compliance with their demands for pay and al-
lowance. Then again the Bengal army never would embark
on shipboard or go to sea, Even you find, from the testimony
of your officers, that this admirable army will not go into the
trenches and dig for fear of violating their high caste. On the
,
other hand, works are performed under a burning sun by the
British soldiers, who are told b the natives "You are not fit
to associate with Bengal sepoys,y and must be degrade 1." Is it
not obvious that whilst you have an army of this sort you are
not safe The question
wls whether, during every year that
passed over our heads, it was fortunate we had not a mutiny
arising from some trifling cause which established naive su-
premacy ,vithout the means of putting a stop to it. What was
the cause of having this army? The cause was a part of that
system which Mr. Pitt es.ablis ed. Mr. Pitt raised to power,
deferred in every respect to the East India Compaey. He would
allow no man to touch what he called the chartetad rights of
the company. It would be robbery, spoliation, and destruc-
tion of the constitution to interfere with them. But after the
Board of Control was established, Mr. Pitt and Mr, Duedas
wished to govern India themselves. In 1798 Mr. Pitt desired
to send out to India six regiments which had been raised in
this country, though n 4 required here, but were w aged in
India. The East India Company protested against this. Mr.
Pitt had no power, according to the act of 1784, to send out
those troops. Aceordinely he introduced a declaratory act,
which was a clune*y mode of endeavouring to gain his object.
He said that by means of such a declaratory act he might
send out troops to India, and he carried the question. But the
Mast India Company, when Mr. Pitt was at the summit of his
power, had sufficient infinenco to secure the introduction of
clauses into the bill which placed a limit upon the number of
troops to be sent to India. From that time I have heard on
the testimony of officers high-in command, that the greatest
jealousy was caused in consequence of the increase in the
number of the Queen's army, and there was always the
greatest preference shown for the native troops. The mutiny
then took place, and the army which they had petted and
spoilt, broke out into revolt, massacreing their officers, wives
and children. This required something on the part of the
Government, and of this house to be done for the future. We
cannot, even if it wore desirable, expect to raise up such a
Bengal army again, portions of which are still in open revolt.
You must have in India an army of the Queen. It must be a
European army, a British army, an army of her Majesty the
Queen. When you have made that change you will have
broken down the foundation of the power of the. East India
Company
purytro; andtroops
can be placed at the disposal of the East India
I cannot see that an army of 50,000 or 60,000
Queen's
Company. We must use the name of the Crown, and inter-
pose the authority of the Crown, political and civil
power necessarily being vested in the Crown, as well as
the military power. Wear, hear.) That appears an urgent
case for legislation, and whether we legislate this year or
next year, we cannot close our eyes to the necessity of legis-
lation. I must decline to follow the example of the hon.
baronet, who discussed the details of t ie bill introduced by
my noble friend, the First Minister of the Crown, for I defy
any man to argue on the provisions of the bill without seeing
the bill itself, aed the connection of the clauses oue with the
other. There are some things, however, if the proposed
change of Government be made, which I wish the house to
keep in mind. lam free to allow that oenefits and advau-
atkeeeeepetuedneasil
sbtleufaittubree
advan-
tages resulted from the independent character and position
sa
character e rbien
of the gentlemen selected as directors of the East India Com-
pany ; but I do not see howtiaiabtoifdythoisf epoanrsttoitfu,ethnetsbliiikleofthmay's
of the Court o
foundation for the governing council of India. it can hardly
be expected that such a basis will be or indeed can be main-
choicththe
Wiled ; but everything that can be done ought to be d me to
members of council. (Hear,
therefore, t
atPidorebospleettefvdrei.eaundlissnhadyoeu,Plent '1;:e found
.0 contain clauses which do not
sufficiently provide for the. objects I consider essential, I shall
join any hon. gentleman in
of the
that security be pro-
f Properuiettcobr
serviceswl wish to keep in view is the
• • 7 and civil which have been performed
great military
the most noble
in India. They are and the most successful
which have ever appeared on the face of the globe, (Hear.
hveicaleri..l)forAtnhoetihnedreopbe
juedeetne
- should be kept up with
bear.) Tiny with the all heir rewards and
emoluments, and I trust, same benefit to England
and India which they have already conferred. (Hear, hear.)
The question is whether those men of the middle classes have
se •
not done everything in our service that we wished done
whether they have not faithfully, zealously, and laboriously,
like other men raised to high positions, statesmen and gene-
rals, performed their duties. If mesh be the case,
nothing
will ever make me consent to any provisions of the bill pro-
Posed to be introduced which
in any degree may injure or
depreciate those eelrice& (Hear, hear.) There is another
point on which I should wish to see security, but it is one
on which wo must make up our minds to encounter danger.
I wish it could be said that by means of the Ministerial plan
questions of Indian Government would be saved from be-
coming matter of party debate in this house. (fleet%) There
are gentlemen in this house who no doubt decline to place
confidence in the Government for the time being —they dis-
trust either their competency or their honesty—(hear)—or
perhaps both. (Laughter.) It cannot be expected, that
there wilt be an absence of all bias on all motions or debates
in that house on the affairs of India ; altinugh nothing can
be more injurious to ourselves than to make subjects of the
utmost delicacy matters of popular debate and the theme of
angry party conflicts. But that is the condition of our very
existence. We must bear with it in India as we have borne
with it elsewhere. I see how mach deliberation it will take
in order te avoid as much
possible these dangers, and yet
I see no alternative but that of looking the question in tho
face, and endeavouring with all the deliberative wisdom of
Pal-dement to come to a proper solution as to the future fate
of this great empire which is entrusted to our hands—(hear,
hear)—which we are to hold for the benefit and happiness of
millions and millions of people, and I trust we shall perform
that duty well. I feel sure we cannot avoid it. (Cheers.)

Mr. DISRAELI— Sir, the noble lord concluded a his-
tory of the Sepoy at nay
with an emotion which must have
been shared by every member in this house, and no ono
could have listened to his narrative without feeling the
sincerity of every sentence he had delivered respecting the
danger we had incurred from that force. But what sur-
prised me most was, that with so full an acquaintance
with this subject, and so profound a conviction of this im-
minent peril, the noble lord in 1853 had not thought fit to
call the attention of his colleagues to so serious a state of
affairs. (Hear, hear.) And, sir, I agree with the noble
lord that it is very
—difficult; and certainly it is not my task,
to vindicate the elements of the constituent body by which
the directors of the East India Company may be chosen.
It is very possible that the constituent body can be justly
describ3d only by the epithet used by the noble lord : but
surely in the year 1853 the noble lord, called upon to con-
sider the whole question of our Indian empire, and the
means of administering the government by which its affairs
should be conducte 1, must have been equally sensible of
what he now styles the " ab nrdity" of those elements.
Nor do I feel that the noble lord was particularly happy
in the argument he urged and the illustration he offered to
show that this is the time for legislation respecting India.
According to the noble lord the matter will run thus :- -
We legislated in favour of our fellow-subjects professing
the Roman Catholic religion in Ireland when we were in
fear of insurrection in that country, and, therefore, why
should we shrink, when there is an insurrection in India,
from doing the Paine thing? (Hear.) But, with great sub-
mission to the noble lord, there appears to be between the
two cases exactly that difference which destroys all the
force of his reasoning and all the appositeness of his illus-
tration. Because I can easily conceive that a statesman
might propose to legislate for a country where he was
afraid of insur.eection if he thought that he could thereby
prevent it—(hear)--but surely when insurrection rages no